HX64099660 

QP45  .N48  How  the  control  oft 


RECAP 


S"     THE      \ 
O    LIBRARIES   q 


IIEALT!! 
SCIENCFS 
IiIBRARY 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arciiive 

in  2010  witii  funding  from 
Columbia  University  Libraries 


http://www.archive.org/details/howcontrolofprevOOnewy 


Keep  Well   Leaflet 
No.  21 


How  the  Control  of  the  Preventable 

Diseases  is  Aided 
Through    Animal   Experimentation 


Published  bs- 

THE  BUREAU  ,/ PUBLIC  HEALTH  EDUCATION 

of  the 

r>Kr.\nT\II~NT    ■   F    IIl'Al.TH,  ClT\   <")F    Nf.W    Yi^RK 


KOYAI,  s.  tiiil'.  L\N!'  t.UVRLKS  L.  KOIlLr.R 

Commissioner  Secretary 


irzz: 


.jile^e   of  Fhy5?iciana  aiAil  bu 


N^2 


TO  ALL  THAT  CALL   IN  TRUTH 

"  The  Truth  is  high  unto  all  them  that  call  upon  Him,  to  all 
that  call  upon  Him  in  truth." — Psalms  cxlv  18. 


The  question  of  disease  prevention,  with  its  correlating  pre- 
vention of  pain,  foreshortening  of  useful  life,  and  the  avoiding 
of  precocious  death,  very  often  is  answered  only  through  careful 
humane  scientific  experiments  on  lower  animals. 


Vivisection  has  its  proponents  and  its  opponents. 


We  present  herewith  several  articles  dealing  with  this  subject 
in  order  to  place  facts  before  the  public  and  enable  them  to 
learn  the  propriety  of  such  experiments. 


en 


CO 


^  VIVISECTION  * 

By  S.  Dana  Hubbard,  M.U. 
Director  Bureau  of  Public  Health  Education. 

What  is  vivisection?  A  rather  broad  and  general  derinition  of  vivisec- 
tion— as  understood  and  applied  by  laymen — is  the  dissection  or  cutting 
up  of  live  animals  in  experimentation. 

It  is  thought,  too,  by  many  that  this  is  performed  without  anaesthetics 
or  only  those  anaesthetics  which  paralyze  muscular  motion  and  do  not 
prevent  pain  or  suflfering. 

Further,  that  such  experimentation  is  done  often  simply  for  practice  or 
"  showing  off,"  as  it  were,  interesting  phenomena.  That  the  vivisectors 
are  men  blind  and  deaf  to  all  evidence  of  pain  and  suffering.  Tliis  is 
untrue  and  false. 

No  class  of  people  know  better  than  do  Americans  what  constitutes 
cruelty  to  animals  and  no  country  has  such  wise  and  sane  laws  on  this 
subject  as  do  the  States  of  this  fair  land. 

Cruelty  to  Animals — Whoever  overdrives,  overloads,  overworks,  tor- 
ments, deprives  of  means  of  sustenance,  cruelly  beats,  mutilates,  or  cruelly 
kills,  or  causes  to  be  so  done,  inflicts  unnecessary  cruelty  upon  animals 
and  should  be  punished  by  imprisonment. 

Such  is  the  law  here  and  elsewhere. 

We,  no  doubt,  all  agree  that  experimentation,  especially  when  accom- 
panied by  vivisection,  should  be  undertaken  only  by  properly  qualified 
persons  and  only  by  those  who  have  a  due  appreciation  of  their  respon- 
sibilities in  this  undertaking. 

Every  regard  should  be  paid  for  the  comfort  of  the  animals  employed. 
The  ultimate  aim  of  this  work  is  the  progress  of  knowledge  and  the  con- 
sequent relief  to  suffering  which  is  so  often  the  result  of  ignorance. 

The  benefits  which  may  accrue  from  such  animal  experimentation  are 
felt  not  only  by  human  beings  but  (as  in  veterinary  practice)  by  animals 
also. 


*Reprinted  from  Monthly  Bulletin  of  the  Department  of  Health,  New 
York  City.  August.  1920. 

I 


No  attempt  will  be  made  by  me  to  defend  experiments  which  have  not 
these  distinct  aims  in  view.  The  ideal  experiment  is  one  performed  with- 
out anaesthesia  and  without  pain.  In  many  cases  this  ideal  can  be  realized, 
but  in  others  it  is  not  obtainable. 

Pain  must  be  absent  (1)  on  the  broad  ground  of  humanity,  (2)  because 
it  is  a  far  greater  disturber  of  the  normal  body  functions  than  anaesthetics, 
and  (3)  because  the  struggles  of  the  animal  in  pain  would  nullify  the 
accuracy  of  the  experiment,  (4)  also  such  resistance  would  endanger  the 
safety  of  the  delicate  apparatus  which  it  is  necessary  to  employ  in  such 
work. 

Exactly  the  same  argument  applies  to  the  study  of  experimentation  of 
conditions  concerning  Aseptic  Methods  of  Surgery.  Here  experiments 
in  which  the  animal  is  kept  alive  after  an  operation  to  study  its  effects 
must  be  accompanied  by  the  healing  process,  which  is  then  painless,  and 
if  asepsis  occurs  there  is  absence  of  fever  and  inflammation;  these  latter 
would  complicate  the  issue  and  render  void  the  test. 

It  is  therefore  for  two  reasons  that  experimenters  use  both  anaesthetics 
and  antiseptics,  (1)  to  save  an  animal  from  sufit'ering  pain  and  (2)  to 
ensure  the  success  of  the  experiment, 

The  science  of  thought  is  the  science  of  life. 

To  understand  the  meaning  of  vital  processes  it  is  necessary  to  study 
the  living  organism,  and  to  obtain  this  knowledge  it  is  sometimes  necessary 
to  perform  experiments  on  living  animals. 

Some  persons  regard  all  experimentation  as  cruel,  detestable  and 
immoral  'because  of  unscrupulous  misrepresentations  put  forward  by 
agitating  fanatics  who  do  so  without  apparent  reason  or  purpose.  The 
barbarities  recorded  by  certain  anti-vivisectors  do  not  in  reality  exist.  The 
repetition  of  these  stories,  in  spite  of  repeated  contradictions,  is,  no  doubt, 
incident  to  wilful  misrepresentation  and  exaggeration  oftentimes,  but,  in 
some  instances  it  may  be  due  partly  to  ignorance  of  the  meaning  of  the 
technical  terms  employed  by  physiological  writers  or  misplaced  affection 
for  dumb  beasts. 

Repeated  investigations  here  and  elsewhere  have  been  made,  and 
charges  inade  against  experimenters  have  been  carefully  sifted,  and  in  no 
single  instance  has  a  charge  of  cruelty  been  sustained.  All  horrifying 
cases  of  torture  reported,  have,  in  the  light  of  fair  analysis  and  reason 
been  abundantly  disproven,  and  these  unfair  and  untruthful  statements 
have  been  made  only  to  be  later  retracted. 


Ihere  arc  always  two  sitlcs  to  every  qiu-stioii.  \  iviscctioii  is  no  exccp- 
lion  -there  are  those  who  favor  this  form  of  research  and  there  are  tluKse 
wlio  oppose  it. 

We  will  take  up  the  side  ol  llie  upi)oiienls  tn  cxperinientatinu.  I  do 
not  wish  to  raise  bias  to  iiiriueiice  fair  judgnieiil.  Iml  I  must  i)r(>eiit  in.\ 
facts  as  history  gives  them. 

The  SIniiiihli's  of  Scii'iuc — the  title  of  an  article  against  experimenta- 
tion, and  which  enjoyed  but  a  short  life,  occasioned  a  libel  suit  in  which 
damages  of  £2,000  Sterling  was  assessed  against  this  work,  the  court  char- 
acterizing it  as  the  "hysterical  work"  of  a  fanatic.  The  Lord  Chief  Jus- 
tice advised  that  such  a  book  siiould  be  immediately  withdrawn  from  pub- 
lication, yet  this  book  has  been  re-issued  with  the  chapter  that  formed  the 
subject  of  the  libel  entirely  omitted.  Lovers  of  idle  sensation  can  still 
read  this  work,  but  on  what  merit  can  it  ask  for  consideration? 

Now  let  us  look  the  facts  squarely  in  the  face. 

What  have  the  Anti-vivisectionists  done?  What  benetit  has  come  from 
their  hands? 

Dr.  W.  W.   Keen,  an  eminent  surgeon,  is  authority   for  the   following: 

■■  The  'anti-viviscctionists  have  not  a  single  life  saved  by  their 
efforts. 

"  Not  a  single  beneficent  discovery  has  liecn  made  liy  them. 

"  Not  a  single  disease  ba.s  l-een  aliated  or  alioli'^hed  liy  them, 
either  in  animals  or  in  mankind. 

"  All  that  they  have  done  is  to  resist  progress,  to  spend  moncv  to 
conduct  campaigns — of  abuse  and  misrepresentation. 

"  They  care  apparently  little  or  nothing  for  the  continued  suf- 
fering and  death  of  human  beings  or  the  grief  and  ensuing  poverty 
of  innumerable  families. 

■'They  have  provided  that  26  out  of  every  1,000  dogs,  cats, 
monkeys,  guineapigs,  mice  and  frogs  experimented  upon  shall  escape 
some  physical  suffering. 

"  They  insist  that  ail  cxi)eriinental  research  on  animals  stop  and 
that  thousands  of  human  beings  and  useful  an-nials  shall  continue, 
year  after  year,  to  suffer  and  die." 

The  Age  of  Experiment  is  ilu-  .Xge  of  Progress. 

Stop  experimentation  and  you  stoj)  progress  -medicine  is  no  exception. 

Dr.   S.   \N'eir   Mitchell,  an  ijittmate    friend  of  Dr.   Keen,  when  visiting 


the  anti-vivisectionists'  exhibit  in  Philadelphia,  put  the  matter  of  the 
opposition  to  experimentation  in  a  nutshell  when  he  said : 

"  Your  exhibit  is  not  quite  complete — you  should  place  here  a  dead  baby 
and  there  a  dead  guinea-pig,  with  the  motto:  "choose  between  them." 

The  anti-vivisectionists  may  be  sincere,  but  it  is  the  opinion  of  many 
that  they  are  not  fair  in  their  methods  of  opposition. 

Many  persons  seek  light  and  truth  about  animal  experimentation.  The 
word  vivisection  is  objectionable,  for  its  meaning  is  usually  extended  to 
cover  experiments  on  the  effects  of  the  varied  and  difficult  problems  con- 
nected with  nutrition  and  physiological  chemistry,  efforts  to  determine  the 
processes  of  digestion,  the  effects  of  drowning  and  the  value  of  various 
methods  of  resuscitation,  of  hypodermic  injections  of  various  drugs,  but 
none  of  these  involve  any  "  cutting  up  of  a  living  animal."  Only  about  6 
per  cent,  of  all  experiments  on  animals  are  strictly  vivisections.  Every 
surgical  operation  is  literally  a  human  vivisection — and  we  take  it  for 
granted  that  these  are  done  hiunanely  and  properly  and  an  anaesthetic  is 
used,  whether  such  fact  is  so  stated  or  not.  Then  why  not  in  simple  jus- 
tice so  infer  when  reading  or  being  told  about  animal  experimentation? 

The  Real  and  Necessary  Object  of  Vivisection 

While  animals  have  benefited  enormously  from  experimental  research, 
the  chief  object  has  been  to  benefit  the  human  race,  to  diminish  suffering, 
l^affle  death,  and  save  the  breadwinner  to  the  family  and  the  country,  or 
the  loved  one  to  relatives. 

There  are  only  three  ways  open  to  lessen  or  abolish  disease : 

1.  Try  a  new  remedy  or  method  or  operation  and  try  it  first  on 
man — God  forbid — ^yet  there  are  advocates  of  human  vivisection. 

2.  Try  them  first  on  the  lower  animals  and  then  on  man,  pro- 
vided the  trials  on  animals  showed  that  they  would  be  an  improve- 
ment upon  existing  methods.  If  trials  on  the  lower  animals  proved 
that  they  were  ineffective  or  dangerous  then  they  should  not  be 
tried  on  man  at  all. 

3.  Try  no  experimentation  at  all  either  on  animal  or  man,  that  is 
to  say,  "  Never  make  any  progress." 

Remember  that  the  least  deviation  from  the  usual  practice,  whether  in 
using  a  new  drug  or  even  a  larger  or  smaller  dose,  or  in  a  different  way, 
is  an  experiment. 


Hypodermic  injections  were  unknown  until  about  50  years  ago. 

Lumbar  puncture — In  order  to  make  a  diagnosis  and  later  to  inject  a 
remedy  was  unknown  until  a  little  over  20  years  ago,  and  has  only  become 
routine  within  the  last  few  years. 

"Clinical  ohscn'alion"  is  constantly  vaunted  by  the  "  Antis "  as  the 
proper  and  best  method  of  progress.  I  would  be  the  last  to  decry  this 
method  of  progress,  but  the  moment  you  act  on  your  clinical  observation 
by  any  new  method,  any  new  dose,  or  drug,  or  any  slightly  varied  or  new 
operation  you  are  making  an  experiment  and  on  a  human  being. 

//  the  departure  is  so  great  from  prior  procedure,  as  to  involve  serious 
results,  then  I  hold  that  no  one  has  any  right  to  try  such  upon  a  human 
being  first,  if  it  is  possible  to  test  it  on  a  lower  animal. 

In  set'en  years  of  experiment  on  animals  more  was  done  for  alleviating 
human  misery  from  the  ravages  of  syphilis  than  clinical  observation  has 
done  in  over  4  centuries. 

Objection  has  been  made  that  animals  are  so  diflferently  constructed 
from  man  that  inferences  from  results  on  animals  are  of  no  value  in  the  case 
of  man.  There  are  a  few  such  differences — these  are  known,  and  even  if 
sometimes  marked  differences  did  exist,  such  for  instance  as  the  effect  of 
belladonna  or  of  opium — but  as  a  fact,  barring  these  few  exceptional 
cases,  the  organs  and  functions  of  man  and  animals  correspond  exactly  in 
health  and  disease  and  the  effect  of  drugs  and  operations  are  parallel  and 
in  most  instances  identical. 

The  "  Antis  "  claim  the  support  of  a  large  number  of  doctors.  Undoubt- 
edly there  are  some  physicians  who  endorse  their  views,  but  who  are  they  ? 
Investigation  into  these  names  shows  that  if  the  persons  to  whom  they 
belong  are  living  they  are  unknown  in  the  profession  of  medicine.  A  few 
of  earlier  times  were  men  of  distinction,  but  to  cite  the  opinions  of  men 
who  died  years  ago  against  the  opinions  of  similar  leaders  of  today,  i> 
like  citing  opinions  of  eminent  engineers  of  the  last  century  as  to  the 
methods  and  even  the  possibilities  of  constructing  a  Panama  Canal — you 
know  it  was  for  years  considered  by  the  most  eminent  as  impossible — but 
it  was  done,  against  the  opinions  of  engineers  of  today.  Facts  speak  for 
themselves. 

Syphilis  and  Vivisection. 

Many  of  the  victims  of  this  dreadful  disease  are  innocent. 

Many  are  innocent  little  children — unborn  babies.     Some  are  dead  when 


born,  others  destined  happih    to  an  early  grave,  and  still  others,  less   for- 
tunate, doomed  to  drag  out  a  most  miserable  existence. 

Of  course,  it  would  be  impossible,  except  as  a  last  desperate  resource,, 
to  experiment  with  this  disease  on  human  beings.  i 

Metchnikoff^ — 1903,  first  succeeded  in  inoculating  this  disease  in  apes 
and  later  in  other  animals. 

Experiments,  heretofore  impossible,   were  immediately   begun. 

In  1905  Schaudin  and  Hoffman  thus  discovered  the  germ. 

In  1910.  after  a  most  extraordinary  series  of  experiments  with  605 
other  remedies;  Ehrlich  discovered  Salvarsan,  "606."  siijce.  which  .time- we 
have  had  the  whip-hand  over  this  plague. 

Anti-vivisection  if  followed  to  its  logical  end  would  not  let  us  fish  as  a 
business,  for  the  fish  are  suffocated  by  their  removal  from  the  water  and 
are  thus  "  tortured,"  not  for  their  benefit,  but  for  our  food. 

Would  it  not  also  be  illogical  to  poison  or  trap  a  rat,  even  if  the  plague 
were  at  our  doors?  Or  a  mouse,  if  the  house  is  invaded?  O'r  to  starve 
the  typhoid-fly  in  a  trap  or  on  "  tangle-foot  "  paper?  Or  to  poison  a  roach, 
though  its  instant  death  under  foot  would  be  allowable? 

To  judge  of  the  character  of  argument  presented  by  the  "  Antis  "  let 
us  select  some  of  the  phrases  or  epithets  used  by  the  writers  in  favor  of 
not  permitting  experiments  on  animals — the  mass  of  terms  indicates  the 
vehemence  of  the  opposition. 


r-,-Mh 


Scientific  hells 
Orgy  of  cruelty 
Inhuman  devils 
Devil's  work 
Abominable  sin 
B'iends  incarnate 
Damnably  mean 
InfeYnal  work 
Diabolical  vivisection 
Deliberate  dabblers  in  blood 
Cruelty  of   cruelties 
.Scientific  assassination 
Black  art  of  vivisection 
Imps  of  hell 
Human  monsters 
•Wbrking  model  of  hell 


Torture  house 

Halls  of  agony 

Devils  incarnate 

Scientific  murder 

Devilish  science 

Arch  fiend 

Master  demon 

Hellish  wrong 

Bloody  mass  of  agony 

Temples  of  torment 

Lust  of  cruelty 

Torture  of  the  innocent 

Satanic 

Fiendg 

Demons 

Devilish  inventions 


Such  arc  .sdine  of  the  many  tcrm^  ai)plied  to  vivisectors  and  research 
institutions  hy  those  advocates. 

What  Vivisection  Has  Done   for  Human   Beings  and   Animals 

The  achievements  of  research  : 

1.'   Antiseptic  method  of  surgery  made  possible. 

2.  The  many  wonders  of  modern  surgery  arc  largely  the  results  of 
animal  experimentation. 

3.  Surgery  of  the  internal  organs — stomach,  spleen,  liver,  appendix,  in- 
testines, gall  stones,  kidneys,  and  female  organs  is  possible  through  the 
study  of  infection  by  experimentation  on  animals. 

4.  Modern  and  wiMiderful  surgery  of  the  brain  made  possible  through 
experimentation. 

5.  The  new  surgery  of  the  chest,  including  the  heart,  the  lungs  and 
large  vessels  made  practical  through  experimentation  on  animals. 

6.  Tetanus  (lockjaw)  has  been  almost  entirely  abolished.  Prevention 
is  possible  only  through  such  experimentation  on  the  lower  animals.  This 
formerly  often  occurred  after  operations  and  after  accidents,  especially 
pistol  shot  wounds  and  fireworks. 

7.  Reduced  the  death  rate  in  open  fractures  (compound)  from  66  in  a 
hundred   fatalities  to  less  than   one  in  a  hundred. 

8.  Reduced  the  death  rate  in  major  female  operations  from  66  in  a 
hundred  to  from  2  to  3  in  a  hundred. 

9.  Made  the  death  rate  in  operations  for  rupture,  amputation,  and  re- 
moval of  tumors  a  negligible  factor. 

10.  Abolished  yellow  fever — a  wonderful  triumph — and  through  its 
sanitary  effect  on  engineering  problems,  made  possible  the  Panama  Canal. 
In  this  instance  human  volunteers  bad  to  be  used  and  one.  Dr.  Lazaar. 
sacrificed  his  life. 

11.  Diminished  materially  the  ravages  of  malaria. 

12.  Reduced  the  incidence  of  rabies  (hydrophobia). 

13.  Devised  a  method  of  direct  transfusion  of  blood,  which  has  saved 
many  precious  lives. 

14.  Cut  the  death  rate  of  diphtheria.  .Ml  over  the  world — in  19  Euro- 
pean and  American  cities  the  death  rate  has  been  made  to  fall  from  79.9 
per  100,000  population  before  antitoxin  to  19  per  100,000  (1894  before— 
1905  after).     The  rate  is  less  than  54  >ts  former  rate. 


15.  Reduced  the  mortality  of  epidemic  cerebro-spinal  meningitis  from 
65%  to  under  25%. 

16.  Largely  abolished  post-operative  hospital  sepsis  and  gangrene,  the 
foes  of  surgical  undertaking.  Formerly  no  matter  how  brilliant  the  opera- 
tion or  the  operator,  these  fatal  hospital  diseases,  sepsis  and  gangrene, 
were  apt  to  appear  and  destroy  the  patient. 

17.  Made  operation  for  goitre  possible. 

18.  Aided  in  reducing  the  death  rate  of  tuberculosis.  Koch's  discovery 
of  the  germ  of  consumption  is  the  "corner  stone"  of  all  of  our  modern 
sanitary  achievements. 

19.  Through  animal  experimentation  the  British  Army  abolished  Malta 
fever.  Before  research  this  destroyed  in  1905,  1,300  men  of  the  garrison; 
in  1909,  after  research,  there  was  only  one  death. 

20.  Almost  abolished  puerperal  (childbed)  fever.  Statistics  before 
discovery,  5  to  57  deaths  of  mothers  per  1,000,  while  today  after  such  dis- 
covery the  rate  is  1  in  1,250  births. 

21.  Discovered  Salvarsan,  "606,"  which  bids  fair  to  protect  many 
innocent  wives  and  unborn  children. 

22.  Typhoid  vaccine  largely  abolished  typhoid  from  armies  of  the  world 
wherever  used. 

23.  Through  animal  experimentation  we  are  gradually  lessening  the 
ravages  of  cancer  and  we  hope  we  are  approaching  the  discovery  of  the 
cause  of  cancer,  poliomyelitis,  and  other  children's  diseases;  then  we  hope 
the  cure  will  quickly  follow. 

25.  Sleeping  sickness — methods  of  transmission,  pathology,  and  treat- 
ment. 

26.  Animal  experimentation  has  enormously  benefited  animals  by  dis- 
covery of  the  causes,  and  in  many  cases  the  means  of  preventing,  and  in 
some  a  positive  cure.  Conspicuous  among  these  are  tuberculosis,  rinder- 
pest, anthrax,  glanders,  hog  cholera,  chicken  cholera,  lumpy  jaw,  and  other 
diseases,  some  of  which  also  attack  mankind. 

Surely  this  list  is  sufficient  reason  to  forward  for  experimentation  and 
any  intelligent  person  would  be  sufficiently  influenced  by  the  same.  When 
science  has  progressed  through  this  aid,  who  is  the  fellow  who  would  dare 
stay  the  hands  of  men  who  are  trying  to  lift  the  curse  of  disease  from 
the  whole  race,  not  only  of  mankind,  but  of  animals  also?  I  say,  if  there 
be  such  creatures,  let  such  cruel  ones,  enemies  of  our  children,  of  our  sick, 
in  fact  enemies  of  humanity,  let  them  stand  up  and  be  counted  by  all. 


'I'licrc  is  >till  mucli  work  to  he  done — in  fact,  \vc  have  just  crossed  the 
tlireshold  of  preventing  and  curing  of  the  infectious  diseases. 

The  work  on  malarial  fever  is  advancing  rapidly  througli  mosquito 
study,  and  if  we  continue  to  progress  as  fast  as  we  have  in  the  past  ten 
years,  this  dread  disease  will  he  annihilated. 

The  pain  inflicted  in  all  the  lahoratories  of  the  world  put  together  dur- 
ing an  entire  year  is  less  tlian  that  which  is  every  day  inflicted  in  the 
slaughter  of  animals  for  food,  and  this,  too,  under  the  most  modern  cruelty 
of  animal  supervision ;  also,  to  that  which  farm  lahorers  inflict  in  spaying 
animals  hy  thousands  in  order  that  heef,  chicken  and  mutton  may  be 
more  tender  or  have  a  more  pleasant  flavor;  to  that  inflicted  by  tiic  hunter 
when  the  victims  of  his  sport  are  imperfectly  shot,  die  a  lingering  death, 
or.  wounded,  are  unable  to  water  and  feed  themselves  and  so  suffer 
interminably ;  to  that  which  women  allow  in  order  to  have  rmo  leathors 
(ospreys)    in  their  hats  and    furs   upon   their  backs. 

So  far  as  the  satisfaction  of  appetite,  the  pandering  to  the  so-called 
sportsman's  instincts,  or  the  gratification  of  vanity  are  concerned,  those 
things  known  to  be  useless  and  cruel,  may  go  on  uncriticised  or  unchecked. 
The  "Antis"  disregard  these  facts  or  to  date  have  made  no  efi^ort  to  pre- 
vent them,  so  far  as  we  can  determine.  The  only  pain  which  seems  t(' 
stir  the  feelings  of  the  "Antis."  meeting  their  disapprobation  and  enabling 
them  to  indulge  in  their  familiar  epithets,  is  one  of  the  most  justifiable 
bits  of  pain  in  the  whole  world — a  pain  inflicted  with  the  noblest  of  all 
objects  and  by  humane  men,  for  so  admittedly  must  the  medical  profes- 
sion be  considered — that  object  being  to  prevent  future  i)ain.  which  other- 
wise would  encompass  the  whole  of  life. 

The  "Antis"  do  not  come  in  contact  with  disease  and  suffering  all  day 
and  every  day  as  medical  men  do;  therefore  it  is  impossible  for  them  to 
realize  how  widespread  sickness  really  is  and  what  terrible  form  it  takes 
in  many  instances.  Their  ideas  arc  vague:  they  talk  about  physical  suffer- 
ing without  any  intimate  knowledge  of  this  question. 

These  bestow  their  sympathies  along  upon  the  moderate  number  of 
animals  subjected  to  the  vivisector's  knife  or  syringe — guinea  pigs,  dogs, 
rabbits,  mice,  monkeys,  etc. 

They  have  no  sympathies  for  the  large  number  of  victims  of  prevent- 
able disease,  which  would  have  suffered  far  more  intensely  if  the  tew  had 
not  been  sacrificed.  Can  it  be  wondered  at  that  medical  men,  whose  expe- 
rience is  so  diiferent  from  theirs,  should  feel  otherwise?     The  busy  doc- 


tor's  life  is  not  one  in  which  there  are' just  a  few  painful  partings  with 
dear  ones,  but  he  has  many  daily  experiences,  his  life  is  literally  steeped 
in  pitiful  and  sad  incidents,  from  early  morn  till  late  into  the  night. 
His  sympathies  aim  at  the  relief  and  cure  of  all  this  evil,  and  the  death 
of  a  few  guinea  pigsi  or  rabbits  is  a  necessary  incident  which  he  has  the 
courage  to  permit  because  of  the  greater  good  that  is  the  ultimate  result. 

Diphtheria. — The  change  in  our  opinions  regarding  this  disease,  inci- 
dent entirely  to  animal  experimentation,  is  incontestable.  This  disease  no 
longer  inspires  the  terror  it  used  to  do,  for  it  is  one  that  can  be  definitely 
ascertained,  and  if  early  detected,  can  be  quickly,  certainly  and  easily 
cured  by  the  method  of  serum  therapy. 

Typhoid  Fever. — It  wasi  not  until  the  germ  of  typhoid  fever  was 
isolated  and  generally  recognized;  not  until  its  growth  and  means  of  its 
destruction,  not  until  its  methods  of  transmission  were  fully  understood, 
that  this  very  serious  malady  was  controlled.  To-day  it  is  a  rarity  in 
many  of  our  largest  cities.  Medical  schools  are  complaining  that  students 
through  a  whole  four-year  course  fail  to  see  a  case  in  order  to  study  it 
cHnically. 

Immunity  to  Disease — 

Bacteriology  is  at  the  bottom  of  hygiene  and  sanitation. 

It  is  by  observing  hygienic  precautions  that  certain  communicable  dis- 
eases are  prevented. 

The  basis  of  bacteriology  so  far  as  it  relates  to  the  production  of  and 
recovery  from  disease  is  animal  experimentation. 

Filth  or  dirt  has  been  defined  as  matter  out  of  place.  Blood  on  a 
carpet  is  certainly  dirt,  and  it  ought  not  to  be  there,  but  blood  in  the 
arteries  or  veins  is  in  its  right  place  and  it  does  the  duty  of  nutrition. 
One  of  these  duties  is  to  exert  a  protective  influence  upon  the  whole 
body.  We  are  exposed,  all  of  us,  so  long  as  spitting  in  public  places  is 
not  prevented,  to  the  germs  of  many  communicable  diseases,  particularly 
consumption  and  influenza,  but  we  do  not  all  die  of  these  diseases.  This  is 
mainly  because  the  scavengers  of  our  system — the  white  blood  corpuscles — 
are  in  good  trim  and  are  able  successfully  to  devour  the  bacteria  that  enter 
our  interior. 

It  is  only  those  persons  who  are  "run  down"  and  in  whom  the  white 
corpuscles  are  below  par  that  contract  disease.  In  assisting  the  white 
corpuscles  to  perform  the  duty  of  destroying  dangerous  organisms  enter- 

10 


iiig  our  bodies,  the  co-operation  of  certain  substances  dissolved  in  the  fluid 
l)ortion  of  the  blood  is  also  essential. 

Some  time  ago — quite  recently — there  were  discovered  auxiliary  sub- 
stances, we  called  them  "Opsonins,"  from  a  Greek  word  which  means 
"to  prepare  the  feast."  The  opsonin  either  adds  something  to  the  bacterium 
which  makes  it  tasty  to  the  white  blood  corpuscles  (or  neutralizes)  or 
modifies  something  which  previously  made  it  distasteful.  The  white  blood 
corpuscles  will  not  ingest  and  devour  most  bacteria  from  an  ordinary 
culture  fluid,  but  they  do  so  eagerly  and  immediately  the  bacteria  are 
bathed  in  serum,  and  the  serum  which  is  most  efficacious  in  acting  as  a 
sort  of  sauce  is  that  which  has  been  obtained  from  an  animal  which  has 
been  previously  infected  with  the  same  kind  of  bacteria,  and  which  has 
recovered  from  the  ailment  such  bacteria  have  set  up.  This  is  not  mere 
fancy  or  theory.  It  is  well  known  that  the  yeast  plant  (yeast,  by  the  way, 
is  very  similar  in  many  details  to  bacteria)  may  be  grown  in  a  solution  of 
sugar  and  that  the  sugar  is  broken  up  and  disappears  and  two  new  sub- 
stances formed  from  the  sugar  take  its  place.  One  of  these  is  the  poison 
alcohol. 

If  bacteria  grow  in  the  blood  they  produce  poisons  in  a  way  analogous 
to  that  by  which  yeast  produces  alcohol.    These  poisons  are  called  toxins. 

There  are  substances  in  the  blood  which  are  called  antitoxins,  because 
they  neutralize  the  toxin  produced  by  the  bacteria.  The  presence  of  anti- 
toxin (diphtheria)  is  a  means  of  natural  defense  against  the  harmful 
effects  of  the  toxins  which  they  would  otherwise  produce.  This  may  be 
determined  by  a  test  devised  by  a  scientist  and  is  called  after  his  name, 
"The  Schick  Test." 

The  marvelous  part  of  nature's  defense  is  that  unless  we  are  over- 
whelmed quickly,  antitoxin  in  our  blood  increases  in  proportion  to  the 
amount  of  toxin.  How  can  we  explain  this?  The  following  is  a  practical 
method  of  so  doing.  It  is  a  familiar  fact  that  manual  labor  increases 
the  hardness  of  the  palms  of  the  hands — the  friction  stimulates  the  outer 
cells  into  increased  activity,  so  that  the  top  layer  of  the  skin  grows  in 
thickness.  The  body  affords  numerous  instances  of  how  it  is  capable  of 
"rising  to  the  occasion"  and  increasing  its  defenses  when  called  upon 
similarly.  Just  in  this  same  manner  the  presence  of  a  toxin  in  the  blood 
stimulates  living  cells  to  produce  more  and  more  antitoxin.  Another  pecu- 
liar fact  is  also  demonstrable — the  blood  remains  rich  in  antitoxin  for  a 
considerable  time  afterwards,  thus  showing  how  it  is  that  one  who  has  had 

11 


an  infectious  disease  does  not  readily  take  it  a  second  time.  He  is  im- 
mune, we  s'ay,  and  will  continue  to  resist  reinfection  for  a  certain  number 
of  years,  because  his  blood  is  so  rich  in  the  antidote.  By  infecting  the 
horse  we  can  obtain  these  anti-bodies  in  great  concentration  and  transfer 
them  to  human  beings  of  all  ages,  and  so  prevent  and  cure  several 
diseases. 

The  principle  of  serum  treatment  depends  upon  these  ascertained  and 
definitely  proven  facts,  the  direct  result  of  animal  experimentation. 

Now  something  about  consumption.  How  may  we  cure  this  dread 
disease?  We  know  the  cause,  but  we  have  not  as  yet  discovered  a  rem- 
edy. Scientists  everywhere  are  working  O'U  this  and  they  should  be  aided 
and  not  hindered.  In  the  treatment  of  tuberculosis  the  doctor  tries'  to 
increase  nature's  method  of  cure:  good,  easily  digested  food,  pure  air,  at 
all  times.  These  do  much  to  increase  the  healthfulness  of  the  blood  stream 
and  fortify  its  natural  power  of  destroying  germs.  Many  times  this 
alone  suffices,  but  at  other  timesi  it  is  wholly  insufficient,  particularly 
if  the  disease  has  advanced  and  the  number  of  bacteria  is  too  great  for 
the  enfeebled  white  blood  corpuscles  to  battle  successfully  against. 

If  it  existed  the  doctor  would  administer  some  opsonin  by  injectirtg  it 
under  the  skin,  in  order  to  increase  the  resistance  of  the  patient.  But  in 
this  disease  (tuberculosis)  we  do  not  know  the  opsonin — it  is  up  to  us  to 
find  it. 

The  making  of  anti-bodies  in  animals  for  use  in  man  or  animals  for  the 
prevention  and  cure  of  disease : 

Let  us  choose  for  description  diphtheria  antitoxin : 

A  pure  culture  of  virulent  diphtheria  germs  is  grown  in  broth  and  the 
toxins  formed  are  filtered  off  and  a  certain  amount  is  injected  into  a 
horse.  A  slight  swelling  appears  locally.  When  the  animal  has  recovered, 
a  second  larger  injection  is  given.  This  blood  is  collected.  This  is 
repeated  several  times,  for  it  is  rich  in  diphtheria  antitoxin,  the  natural 
antidote  that  has  enabled  the  horse  to  withstand  at  the  end  of  the  series 
of  injections  a  dose  of  toxin,  which  if  given  earlier  would  have  killed  it. 
The  horse's  blood  is  allowed  to  clot,  and  the  liquid  residue  (serum) 
contains  the  antidote.  This  is  purified  and  concentrated  and  is  the  diph- 
theria antitoxin  used  so  successfully  in  the  treatment  of  diphtheria  in 
human  beings.  But  it  must  be  given  early  and  in  sufficient  dosage.  The 
Department  of  Health  gives  a  schedule  of  dosage  according  to  age  of 
patient  and  character  of  disease. 

12 


What  more  natural  way  is  possible  of  treating  a  disease?  It  has  been 
used  in  this  city  since  1895,  and  hasi  reduced  the  death  rate  from  diph- 
theria from  about  40  per  cent,  to  8  per  cent. 

The  pathologists  at  first  were  timid  about  using  horse  serum  in  human 
beings,  even  if  it  carried  the  life-saving  antitoxin  or  opsonin,  but  Professor 
Richet  argued  that  if  this  serum  protected  a  horse  injected  with  many 
times  a  fatal  dose  of  diphtheria  toxin,  it  should  do  so  in  the  case  of  a 
iiuman  being,  and  he  tried  it  and  it  was  successful. 

The  diphtheria  poison  is  very  deadly  in  the  human  being;  therefore  to 
1)C  effective,  it  must  be  used  early  in  order  to  antidote  the  toxin.  To-day 
the  treatment  of  diphtheria  is  mainly  by  using  diphtheria  antitoxin.  Not 
to  employ  it  indicates  that  the  doctor  is  uninformed  and  is  jeopardizing 
the  precious  life  of  his  patient  and  to  continue  not  to  use  such  an  antidote 
is  little  short  of  criminal. 

Diphtheria  has  not  been  stamped  out  because  the  efforts  of  prevention 
are  not  adequate  and  those  that  are  known  to  science  are  not  uniformly 
and  generally  applied. 

Prevention,  it  is  true,  is  better  than  cure,  "but  cure  is  better  than  suffer- 
ing and  death.  To-day  the  medical  profession  can  positively  cure  diph- 
tlieria,  and  by  use  of  a  vaccine  can  prevent  it,  and  if  medical  progress 
continues  its  stride  as  it  is  doing,  who  can  doubt  but  that  in  the  very  near 
future  diseases  like  yellow  fever,  typhus,  typhoid  and  smallpox  will  not 
only  be  rare,  but  will  be  stamped  out? 

Why,  may  we  ask,  has  typhus  and  typhoid  fever  died  out  in  our  large 
.American  cities?  In  our  opinion  it  is  incident  directly  to  the  learning  of 
their  nature,  improving  sanitation  and  destroying  the  vermin  that  transmit 
typhus  and  the  bacilli  which  cause  typhoid  fever.  How  did  we  learn 
these  facts?     Of  course,  largely  through  animal  experimentation. 

Many  citizens  quite  often  complain  of  the  extravagances  of  public 
officials  and  of  the  indifference  in  quarters  affecting  health.  Why  is  this? 
Hut,  you  will  say,  how  does  this  come  in  here?  The  public  authorities  are 
not  vivisectors.  No;  it  is  true  that  in  many  instances  they  are  not,  but 
the  action  of  all  public  health  officials  is  directly  due  to  the  desires  of 
public  opinion— healthy  public  opinion  which  has  been  preached  to  deaf 
ears  for  many  years,  has  at  last  impressed  itself  upon  many  minds,  and 
this  knowledge  was  the  offspring  of  pathological  experiment.  It  was  not 
until  the  germ  of  typhoid  was  isolated  and  recognized  that  prevention  and 
control  through  such  means  as  the  pasteurization  of  milk  and  the  purifica- 

13 


tion  of  water  became  certainly  possible,  yet  these  alone  were  not  wholly 
effective  under  conditions  such  as  exist  in  warfare  until  the  immunizing 
vaccine  was  produced,  tested  on  animals  and  man  and  then  successfully 
used  in  our  armies.  Now  having  such  a  lesson  before  us,  must  not  the 
people  obey  the  teachings  of  sicience? 

Let  us  pursue  this  vivisection  still  further. 

A  ship  enters  our  port.  It  is  infected  with  plague  and  the  ship  is  also 
infested  with  rats — carriers  of  plague. 

Would  it  be  preferable  to  kill  the  rats  and  so  prevent  them  and  the 
disease — a  terrible  pestilence — entering  our  port?  A  plague  visitation 
would  cause  untold  disaster.  Or  would  staying  one's  hand,  because  the 
slaughter  of  the  rats  would  be  a  painful  proceeding,  be  the  more  pre- 
ferable? 

The  captain  who  spared  the  rats  wTould  be  guilty  of  a  criminal  act 
which  would  cause  the  unnecessary  death  of  many  innocent  human  beings, 
and  I  might  state  that  it  is  so  with  many  anti-vivisectionists,  who  by  their 
acts  are  similarly  causing  the  deaths  of  many  innocent  human  beings,  as 
well  as  animals. 

The  anti-vivisectionist  sees  only  the  pain  inflicted  and  does  not  heed 
the  pain  prevented. 
Conclusiofis. 

Unnecessary  and  needless  vivisection  should  be  stopped. 

Vivisection  by  inexperienced,  unsophisticated,  and  improper  individuals' 
should  be  stopped. 

All  vivisectiofi  should  be  accompanied  by  every  possible  precaution  to 
prevent  suffering  of  all  kinds. 

No  one  should  needlessly  restrict  scientific  bodies  in  pursuit  of  knowl- 
edge to  aid  the  sick  or  suffering. 

That  experiments  upon  living  animals  have  proved  of  the  utmost  ser- 
vice to  mankind  in  the  past  and  are  indispensable  to  the  future  progress 
of  medicine  and  public  health. 

While  strongly  depreciating  the  infliction  of  unnecessary  pain,  it  is  our 
opinion — alike  in  the  interest  of  man  and  of  animals — that  it  is  not  desir- 
able to  restrict  competent  persons  in  the  performance  of  animal  experi- 
mentation. 

We  regret  the  widespread  lack  of  information  regarding  the  aims  and 
achievements  and  the  procedures  of  animal  experimentation,  and  we  de- 
plore the  persistent  misrepresentation  of  these  aims,  purposes  and 
achievements. 

14 


We  protest  against  the  frequent  denunciation  of  self-sacrificing,  high- 
minded  men  of  science  who  are  devoting  their  lives  to  the  welfare  of 
mankind  in  efforts  to  solve  the  complicated  problems  of  living  beings  and 
their  diseases. 

It  is  our  opinion  that  unrestricted  performance  by  proper  persons  of 
scientific  experiments  upon  living  animals  is  essential  to  the  maintenance 
and  progress  of  medicine  and  its  allied  science,  biology. 

There  is  not,  so  far  as  I  can  learn,  a  single  resolution  of  any  scientific 
body  expressing  a  contrary  opinion. 

VIVISECTION 

A  Merciful  Servant  of  Man  and  of  the  Animals  Over  Which  He  Has 

Dominion 

By  W.  W.  Keen,  M.  D. 
liincritus  Professor  of  Surgery,  Jefferson  Medical  College,  Philadelphia. 

Reprinted   from  The  Country  Gentleman,  F"ebruary  12,   1921,  by  gracious 
permission  of  the  author  and  the  editor. 


Editori.^l  Notk. — Dr.  W.  W.  Keen  wrote  this  article 
shortly  before  the  eighty-fourth  anniversary  of  his 
birth.  At  the  subsequent  birthday  dinner,  given  in  his 
honor  by  leading  physicians  and  surgeons  and  other 
distinguished  citizens  of  the  United  States,  he  was 
noticeably  one  of  the  most  active  men  present.  Doctor 
Keen  is  recognized  as  one  of  the  greatest  surgeons 
America  has  produced.  His  prominence  and  dis- 
tinguished service  to  humanity  are  evidenced  by  the 
many  degrees  which  he  has  received  from  colleges, 
universities  and  scientific  societies  of  Europe  and 
America. 


Vivisection  means  literally  "  cutting  a  living  being."  Every  surgical 
operation  is  literally  a  vivisection.  In  common  speech,  however,  the  word 
has  obtained  a  much  wider  meaning — namely,  any  mode  of  experimenting 
on   an  animal,  by  administering  a  drug  by  the   mouth,  by  a  hypodermic 


15 


syringe  cr  by  other  means ;  by  varying  the  quality  or  the  quantity  of 
food;  and  also  any  cutting  operation  for  the  purpose  of  research.  The 
proper  term  is  "  experimental  research." 

The  three  principal  objections  to  experimental  research  are :  That  it  is 
cruel;  that  only  25  per  cent,  of  the  profession  approve  of  it;  and  that 
it  has  been  of  no  benefit  either  to  man  or  to  animals.  I  will  consider  them 
in  the  order  given. 

That  cruel  suffering  was  inflicted  in  the  past  is  an  undoubted  fact, 
but  we  must  never  forget  that  prior  to  October  16,  1846,  anaesthesia  was 
impossible,  for  no  effective  anaesthetic  was  known.  Even  the  word 
anaesthesia  and  its  derivatives  did  not  exist.  I  condemn  the  utter  in- 
difference to  pain  such  as  was  admitted  by  Klein  before  the  first  English 
commission  in  1875 ;  whether  he  is  now  alive  or  not  I  do  not  know. 
Dr.  B.  A.  Watson,  of  Jersey  City*,  was  cruel  in  his  experiments  on  shock, 
and  was  soundly  rebuked  at  the  time.  Mantegazza,  in  his  book  on  the 
Physiology  of  Pain,  is  the  only  experimenter  of  whom  I  have  any 
knowledge  who  deliberately  did  perform  cruel  experiments  for  the  very 
purpose  of  studying  the  effects  of  pain  per  se. 

But,  while  the  experiments  mentioned  above  are  constantly  described 
by  the  A-V's,  one  important  fact  is  nearly  always  omitted — the  dates  of 
these  events.  The  reader,  uninformed  in  the  history  of  medicine,  is  apt 
to  believe  that  these  men  are  now  living  and  performing  such  experi- 
ments. 

The  Apostle  of  Gentleness 

Doctor  Watson  died  in  1892.  His  experiments  were  done  thirty  years 
ago,  in  1890.  Mantegazza's  book  was  published  in  1880,  forty  years  ago. 
The  "  ferociously  cruel  Magendie  "  was  born  in  1783,  six  years  before  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  was  adopted,  and  his  last  paper  was 
published  in  1842,  four  years  before  the  introduction  of  anaesthesia  in 
1846.  Dupuytren  was  born  in  1777  and  died  in  1835,  eleven  years  before 
anaesthesia  was  known. 

To  compare  the  work  of  men  who  never  knew  there  was  such  a  thing 
as  an  anaesthetic  with  those  of  to-day  is  like  comparing  the  antiquated 
methods  of  the  engineers  of  seventy-five  and  one  hundred  years  ago  with 
the  methods  of  General  Goethals  and  his  associates  in  Panama. 

The  A-V's — I  adopt  A-V  as  a  clearly  understood  contraction  of  anti- 
vivisection  and   its   derivatives — insist  that  vivisection   is  cutting  up   and 

16 


tdrturiiig  live  animals  with  tlic  alleged  idea  of  gaining  from  their  torments 
certain  hiological  and  pathological  facts  designed  to  be  useful  in  the 
treatment  of  human  maladies.  All  this  is  precisely  what  modern  research 
by  experiment  on  animals  is  not.  Torturing  animals  and  studying  their 
torments  are  not  the  occupation  of  research  workers.  Such  suffering, 
especially  severe  suffering,  would  defeat  the  very  objects  of  such  re- 
searches. "  To  rend  them  to  shreds "  could  by  no  possibility  give  the 
least  information  on  any  problem  of  health  or  disease. 

Had  the  A-V's  followed  Owen  Wister's  suggestion  and  said,  "  The 
Declaration  of  Independence  was  signed  by  Christopher  Columbus  on 
Washington's  birthday  during  the  siege  of  Vicksburg  in  the  presence  of 
Queen  Elizabeth  and  Judas  Iscariot,"  their  statement  would  have  been 
equally  veracious  and  more  striking. 

Moreover,  the  A-V's  studiously  avoid  any  mention  of  anaesthesia  in 
connection  with  the  many  cases  which  they  quote.  For  instance,  take  an 
experiment  of  Crile,  of  Cleveland.  Crile  is  said  to  have  poured  boiling 
water  into  the  intestines  of  a  dog  while  he  was  alive.  If  this  description 
were  literally  true  Crile  should  have  been  prosecuted  and  would  have 
been  convicted  by  his  own  testimony.  Yet  no  prosecution  was  ever  in- 
stituted by  those  who  express  such  horror. 

But  what  are  the  real  facts?  For  certain  reasons,  later  proved  to  be 
valid  for  both  animal  and  man,  Crile  suspected  that  operative  roughness, 
or  any  procedure  which  involved  serious  injury  and  which  were  the 
animal  conscious  would  be  extremely  painful  but  w-hich  when  the  animal 
was  rendered  unconscious  to  pain  could  not  cause  the  least  pain,  was 
nevertheless  injurious  to  the  animal  and  would  endanger  its  recovery 
after  any  operation.  He  suspected  that  the  tearing  out  of  a  cancerous 
breast — as  I  was  taught  to  do  by  Joseph  Pancoast,  the  best  surgeon  of 
his  age,  sixty  years  ago — so  as  to  lessen  hemorrhage,  seriously  injured  the 
patient  and  might  easily  turn  the  scale  against  recovery,  although,  being 
anaesthetized,  the  patient  was  not  conscious  of  the  least  pain. 

.Accordingly,  Crile  tested  his  idea  upon  dogs.  He  did  pour  boiling 
water  into  the  belly — not  into  the  intestines — he  did  crush  the  paws  with 
stout  pincers  and  did  burn  the  paws  in  a  gas  flame,  and  so  forth,  and 
in  his  book — Surgical  Shock,  p.  14 — he  especially  states  that  "  in  all  cases 
the  animals  were  anaesthetized,"  a  statement  the  .\-V's  almost  always 
suppress. 

What  has  been  the   result  of  his   researches?     Crile  has  become  the 

17 


Apostle  of  Gentleness  to  all  the  surgical  world.  By  heeding  his  warnings 
many  a  life  was  saved  in  the  Great  War,  through  watching  the  blood 
pressure,  especially  in  shock,  when  even  a  slight  additional  injury,  by 
operating  roughly,  might  turn  the  scale. 

Anaesthetics  Are  Essential 

Now  is  it  fair  to  suppress  all  mention  of  an  anaesthetic  in  such  appar- 
ently cruel  experiments,  especially  when  the  author  expressly  stated  that 
an  anaesthetic  had  been  given  in  every  case? 

It  may  be  that  the  operator  is  a  physiologist  seeking  to  unravel  the 
complex  processes  of  the  nervous  system  or  a  surgeon  testing  a  new 
operation.  On  a  struggling  animal  no  delicate  surgical  operation  can 
possibly  be  done,  and  no  exact  observation  can  be  made.  An  anaesthetic, 
therefore,  is  an  absolute  necessity,  apart  from  any  humane  motive. 

It  has  been  asserted  that  the  lips  of  animals  are  sewed  or  clamped 
together  to  prevent  their  screams  from  disturbing  the  operator's  nerves. 
Never,  till  now,  in  all  my  long  life  have  I  heard  such  an  allegation.  I 
do  not  believe  it  is  true.  Besides  that,  try  the  experiment  on  yourself. 
Hold  your  lips  together  and  find  out  whether  you  can  still  scream.    I  can. 

"  Under  incomplete  anaesthesia  "  is  a  phrase  often  quoted  against  Crile. 
Let  me  give  an  instance  from  my  own  experience.  A  young  lady  was 
threatened  with  a  permanently  stiff  elbow.  To  prevent  this  serious 
disability  I  had  a  dentist  give  her  nitrous  oxid  several  times.  As  soon 
as  she  was  unconscious  I  forcibly  flexed  and  extended  the  joint.  Anyone 
ignorant  of  surgery  and  looking  on  would  have  exclaimed,  "  What  a  brute 
that  surgeon  is !  "  For  she  writhed  and  struggled  so  that  three  of  us 
had  difficulty  in  preventing  her  from  landing  on  the  floor.  Yet  when 
she  recovered  she  knew  nothing  of  her  struggles  and  had  not  felt  the 
slightest  pain.    That  was  "  incomplete  anaesthesia." 

Again,  the  surgeon  has  every  possible  selfish  motive  to  facilitate  in 
every  way  the  speedy  recovery  of  the  animal  by  the  greatest  kindness 
and  care.  If  the  mortality  of  his  new  operation  is  large  his  hopes  are 
blasted  and  his  reputation  suffers. 

The  head  nurse  of  one  of  America's  best  surgical  clinics  was  called  to 
the  Rockefeller  Institute  to  care  for  the  animals. 

Claude  Bernard's  experiments  on  the  effects  of  heat  on  dogs  are 
made  much  of  in  A-V  literature.  "Some"  are  said  to  have  been  baked 
to  death  and  "  some  "  merely  boiled  at  temperatures  of  between  200  and 

18 


300  degrees  Fahrenheit.  Again,  what  are  the  real  facts?  First,  these 
experiments  were  done  forty-four  years  ago,  in  1876,  to  determine  the 
effects  of  heat  alone  on  healthy  animals — that  is,  with  none  of  the 
profound  disturbances  caused  by  disease  in  man.  Second,  there  were 
just  three  dogs.  The  naming  of  300  degrees  is  unwarrantable,  for  the 
highest  temperature  in  Bernard's  three  experiments  was  just  100  degrees 
Centigrade,  or  212  degrees  of  our  absurd  Fahrenheit  scale.  The  dogs 
died  when  their  own  body  temperature  reached  about  112  degrees  Fahren- 
heit, only  a  few  degrees  higher  than  a  not  uncommon  temperature  in 
high  fever  in  our  patients. 

In  industry  we  have  men  exposed  to  very  high  temperatures.  In  1892 
— Medical  News,  LXI,  p.  262 — Coplin  published  the  results  of  exposure 
of  500  and  800  men,  the  day  and  night  shifts,  in  a  sugar  refinery  at 
temperatures  from  95  degrees  Fahrenheit  to  165  degrees  Fahrenheit  in  a 
hot  July.  Of  this  large  number,  213  had  to  stop  work  on  account  of 
heat  exhaustion.  In  consequence  of  his  wise  and  vigorous  treatment, 
aimed  especially  at  reducing  their  body  temperatures,  185  were  able  to 
return  to  work  and  only  one  died. 

I  do  not  hesitate  to  condemn  Bernard's  omission  of  opium  or  other 
narcotic  in  his  experiments;  but  his  experiences  should  be  correctly 
quoted. 

I  can  also  contribute  a  bit  of  personal  experience  just  here.  I  have 
had  quite  a  lot  of  accidents — "  annual  accidents,"  my  friends  insist  on 
calling  them.  I  have  broken  my  nose  and  both  collar  bones,  have  dis- 
located one  shoulder  and  broken  the  other.  Also,  in  addition  to  other 
minor  operations,  I  have  had  a  portion  of  my  large  bowel  cut  out.  I 
might  almost  pose  as  a  museum  specimen. 

When  my  dislocated  shoulder  threatened  to  become  stiff  I  was  "  baked 
alive " — that  is,  my  shoulder  and  a  considerable  adjacent  area  on  my 
arm,  chest  and  back  were  so  baked — up  to  250  degrees  Fahrenheit  without 
discomfort,  and  with  the  result  that  my  arm  is  as  useful  as  ever. 

When  the  piece  of  my  large  bowel  was  cut  out  and  the  two  open  ends 
sewed  together — I  was  nearly  seventy-five  years  old  at  that  time — I  was 
reclining  in  bed  with  a  letter  pad  on  my  knee  three  days  after  the  opera- 
tion, was  out  of  bed  in  ten  days,  and  here  I  am,  nine  years  later,  in  good 
health. 

Before  the  perfection  of  the  antiseptic  method  by  Lister  and  others, 
and  before  the  very  many  experiments  needed  to  determine  just  the  best 

19 


and  safest  way  to  do  such  an  operation,  no  prudent  surgeon  would  have 
dared  to  attempt  it.  I  should  have  been  allowed  to  die.  The  very  many 
meticulous  details  required  to  sew  the  two  open  ends  of  the  bowel  together, 
so  exactly  as  to  prevent  any  possible  leakage — for  the  least  leakage  meant 
a  fatal  peritonitis — had  been  worked  out  by  experiments  on  animals,  and 
my  friends  and  I  thank  God  that  they  had  been  so  determined. 

If  we  are  to  improve  our  treatment  in  any  department  of  medicine,  only 
two  courses  are  open  to  us :  First,  to  try  a  new  drug  or  a  new  method 
first  on  animals  and,  if  the  results  justify  it,  then  use  the  better  treatment 
on  man ;  second,  try  it  first  on  man. 

Personally,  I  advocate  the  first.  Mrs.  Caroline  Earle  White,  long  the 
leader  and  still  the  idol  of  the  A-V's,  in  1886  published  an  answer  to  one 
of  my  addresses.  On  page  4  she  said :  "  I  take  issue  with  Doctor  Keen 
*  *  *  where  he  says  '  These  experiments  cannot  be,  nay,  they  must  not 
be,  tested  first  upon  man.'  I  assert,  on  the  contrary,  that  in  the  majority 
of  cases  they  must  be  tested  first  upon  man  or  not  tested  at  all." 

On  page  10  she  said :  "  Doctor  Keen  next  mentions  that  '  in  India 
alone  20,000  human  beings  die  annually  from  snake  bites  and  that  as  yet 
no  antidote  has  been  discovered.  *  *  *  How  can  we  seek  intelligently 
for  an  antidote,'  he  asks,  '  until  we  know  accurately  the  effects  of  the 
poison?'  The  answer  that  suggests  itself  to  me  is  very  different  from  the 
one  which  she  makes.  *  *  *  Here  is  an  opportunity  which  is  not  often 
afforded  of  experimenting  upon  human  beings.  Since  they  would  infallibly 
die  from  the  snake  bites,  there  can  be  no  objection  to  trying  upon  them 
every  antidote  that  can  be  discovered."  The  proposal  is  as  absurd  as  it  is 
cruel. 

Thirty-five  years  have  passed  since  Mrs.  White  thus  urged  "  human 
vivisection."     I  have  yet  to  see  the  first  repudiation  of  it  by  any  A-V ! 

In  1909  a  set  of  rules  regarding  animals  was  drawn  up.  They  are  given 
in  full  in  my  book  on  Animal  Experimentation  and  Medical  Progress,  p. 
246.  I  know  of  no  laboratory  in  the  United  States  in  which  these  rules 
are  not  posted  up ;  and,  what  is  more,  they  are  lived  up  to. 

An  Astonishing  Conclusion 

These  rules  provide  for  the  scrupulous  care  of  the  animals.  No  opera- 
tions whatever  are  permitted  except  with  the  sanction  of  the  director, 
usually  a  responsible  member  of  the  faculty.  In  case  the  operation  would 
cause  greater  discomfort  than  that  attending  anaesthesia,  the  animal  must 

20 


first  be  "  rendered  incapable  of  perceiving  pain."  Exceptions  arc  allowed 
only  by  express  sanction  of  the  director.  Such  exceptions  are  excessively 
rare.  "At  tiic  conclusion  of  the  cxi)crimcnt  the  animal  shall  be  painlessly 
killed." 

2.  With  regard  to  the  attitude  of  the  medical  profession,  in  an  extraor- 
dinary pamphlet  called  "  Medical  Opinions  Against  Vivisection,"  issued 
without  any  date  by  the  New  York  A-V  Society,  on  page  2  it  is  stated  that 
only  25  per  cent,  of  the  medical  fraternity  are  in  favor  of  experimental 
research.  We  are  not  informed  how  this  astonishing  conclusion  has  been 
reached  by  the  authors  of  the  pamphlet. 

The  only  real  way  to  obtain  any  correct  idea  of  the  general  sentiments 
of  the  profession  is  by  knowing  what  the  profession  itself  has  said  in  the 
great  international  congresses  of  medicine  and  surgery  in  Europe  and 
America,  with  their  thousands  of  members;  in  the  national  associations — 
for  example,  the  American  Medical  Association,  comprising  over  84,000 
members ;  in  the  American  Association  for  the  Advancement  of  Science, 
having  also  thousands  of  members ;  and  in  special  societies  with  hundreds 
of  members. 

These  organizations  have  passed  resolutions  indorsing  experimental 
research  again  and  again — on  pages  xv-xviii  of  my  book  on  Animal  Experi- 
mentation, and  so  forth,  I  give  several  of  these  resolutions  in  full.  How 
were  these  expressions  of  opinion  possibly  passed  and,  as  is  frequently 
recorded,  ununimously,  if  three-quarters  of  the  profession  are  neutral  or 
hostile?     Why  did  not  these  three-quarters  protest? 

On  the  other  hand,  I  do  not  know  of  a  single  organization,  medical  or 
scientific,  which  has  passed  any  resolution  against  such  research. 

The  last  British  Commission  on  Vivisection,  1906-07,  of  which,  observe, 
opponents  as  well  as  advocates  of  research  were  members,  unanimously 
passed  the  following  resolution — Final  Report,  p.  20: 

"  We  desire  further  to  state  that  the  harrowing  descriptions  and  illus- 
trations of  operations  inflicted  on  animals,  which  are  freely  circulated  by 
post,  advertisement  or  otherwise,  are  in  many  cases  calculated  to  mislead 
the  public,  so  far  as  they  suggest  that  the  animals  in  question  were  not 
under  an  anaesthetic.  To  represent  that  animals  subjected  to  experiments 
in  this  country  are  wantonly  tortured  would,  in  our  opinion,  be  absolutely 
false." 

The  same  is  true  of  the  United  States  to-day. 

So  much  for  quantity.  Now  let  us  look  at  the  quality  of  the  men  on 
the  two  sides. 

21 


The  pamphlet  just  alluded  to  contains  several  hundred  names.  It  has 
influenced  many  persons.  In  a  letter  to  one  of  my  friends,  Mrs.  Belais, 
president  of  the  New  York  A-V  Society,  says :  "  Errors  occur  very  infre- 
quently " — her  italics — "  but  we  are  always  most  punctilious  about  correc- 
tion."   How  "  accurate  "  the  pamphlet  is  the  following  will  show : 

Some  Outstanding  Achievements 

Dr.  William  H.  Welch,  of  Johns  Hopkins,  our  champion  advocate  of 
experimental  research,  appears  in  the  list  of  its  opponents !  Doctor 
Woglum,  of  the  Crocker  Cancer  Commission,  is  classed  as  another 
opponent !  Sir  David  Ferrier,  my  old  Scotch  friend  and  a  woi-ld-famous 
experimenter  on  the  brain,  who  has  lived  in  London  for  over  forty  years, 
as  I  know  personally,  is  listed  in  Paris,  France,  and  among  the  opponents ! 

How  "  punctilious  "  they  are  about  such  corrections  is  evident  by  this 
instance : 

In  the  London  Times  of  April  18,  1902,  Sir  Frederick  Treves  protested 
against  the  misuse  of  his  name  as  an  opponent  of  research.  In  1920,  eighteen 
years  after  this  and  later  repeated  protests,  his  name  is  still  so  misquoted 
in  this  very  pamphlet. 

Of  living,  really  eminent  medical  men,  I  cannot  count  a  score  zvho  are 
opposed  to  experimental  research. 

3.     Let  us  now  consider  a  few  of  the  benefits  of  experimental  research. 

The  A-V's  declare  that  bacteriology,  one  of  the  greatest  discoveries 
ever  made  in  medicine,  is  not  a  science  at  all.  They  claim  that  germs  are 
not  the  cause  of  typhoid,  tetanus,  diphtheria,  tuberculosis,  and  so  forth ; 
that  all  the  wonderfully  effective  vaccines  and  serums  against  these  various 
diseases  are  pouring  filth  into  the  blood  and  are  of  no  use  anyhow.  In  their 
suit  against  the  Red  Cross  they  alleged  that  "  nothing  has  been  discovered 
by  means  of  it  (vivisection)  that  is  at  all  beneficial  to  the  human  race," 
and  in  a  letter,  dated  July  29,  1920,  sent  to  every  member  of  the  1921 
Pennsylvania  legislature,  they  state,  "  The  results  of  this  cruelty  are  of  no 
value  to  the  human  race." 

They  care  nothing  whatever  for  the  benefits  which  have  followed  from 
the  researches  of  Pasteur  and  Lister. 

I  can  give  only  a  few  examples  of  many  perfectly  attested  benefits. 
I  shall  consider  each  very  briefly :  Typhoid  fever,  puerperal  (childbed) 
fever,  diphtheria,  tetanus,  syphilis,  yellow  fever,  The  Surgery  of  War, 
The  Surgery  of  Peace  and  The  Cry  of  the  Animals. 

22 


Typhoiii  I'KviiK.  In  tlic  Civil  War  10  per  cent,  of  all  deaths  were  from 
typhoid. 

In  the  Spanish-American  War  every  fifth  soldier  in  our  army  fell  ill  of 
typhoid,  and  86  per  cent,  of  all  deaths  were  from  typhoid. 

In  the  recent  Great  War  almost  none!  Why?  Because  in  the  interval 
lietwecn  1898  and  1914  vaccination  against  typhoid  had  been  discovered  and 
licvelopcd. 

Let  me  illustrate  by  two  great  experiments  on  8,000  and  on  about 
750,0(X)  human  beings  respectively : 

Plymouth,  Pennsylvania,  a  town  of  8,000  people,  was  supplied  with 
water  from  a  reservoir  fed  by  a  mountain  stream.  In  the  first  three 
months  of  1885  one  man,  living  on  the  banks  of  this  stream,  was  ill  with 
typhoid  fever.  His  copious  dejecta  were  thrown  out  upon  the  snow 
without  disinfection.  When  a  warm  thaw  with  rain  occurred  toward 
the  end  of  Alarch,  the  germs  of  typhoid  from  the  dejecta  were  washed 
into  the  stream.  On  April  tenth  an  epidemic  of  typhoid  broke  out  in 
the  town  and  caused,  in  all,  1104  cases  and  114  deaths. 

From  September  21,  1917,  to  January  25,  1918,  the  figures  are  official 
— a  period  about  two  weeks  longer  than  the  war  with  Spain,  there  were, 
on  the  average,  742,626  men  every  day  in  the  camps  in  the  United  States. 
They  came  from  unprotected  communities,  where  autumnal  typhoid  was 
rife.  Yet  during  these  four  months  there  were  but  114  cases  of  typhoid 
and  five  of  paratyphoid  fever,  a  fever  closely  resembling  typhoid.  Had 
the  conditions  of  1898  prevailed,  there  would  have  been  144,506  cases  and 
about  15,000  deaths. 

Why  was  typhoid  almost  banished?  Because  every  soldier  was  im- 
mediately vaccinated  against  the  fever.  As  soon  as  this  vaccination  was 
completed,  in  less  than  five  weeks  from  December  14,  1917,  to  January 
15,  1918,  there  were  only  six  cases  in  the  three-quarters  of  a  million  men. 
These  magnificent  results  were  a  direct  outcome  of  laboratory  work. 

During  the  Great  War  the  British  A-V's  did  their  best  to  dissuade 
the  soldiers  from  being  vaccinated.  Had  the  soldiers  heeded  them, 
thousands  of  lives  would  have  been  needlessly  sacrificed^ 

Chh-dbed,  or  Pukrperal  Fevkr.  In  my  student  days — 1860-62 — child- 
bearing  caused  the  death  of  three  to  five  mothers  in  every  hundred.  Was 
not  this  a  horrible   result   of  a  normal   and   necessary  human   function? 

But  sometimes  this  mortality  rose  to  20  per  cent  and,  in  local 
epidemics,  even  fifty-five  mothers  out  of  every  one  hundred  died! 

23 


What  are  the  present  figures?  You  will  find  them  in  detail  in 
A.  W.  W.  Lea's  Puerperal  Infection,  London,  1910,  p.  24.  Cases  already 
infected  entering  the  maternity  ward,  of  course,  are  excluded.  Lea 
quotes  various  wonderful  statistics,  culminating  in  one  series  of  8,373 
successive  births  without  the  death  of  even  one  mother   from  infection. 

Pasteur's  Discovery 

Why  this  enormous  saving  of  human  lives?  Because  in  1843  Oliver 
Wendell  Holmes  showed  that,  in  some  then  unknown  way,  the  doctor 
and  the  nurse  carried  the  fever  from  patient  to  patient ;  and  finally, 
thirty-six  years  later,  1879,  Pasteur,  in  a  debate  in  the  Academy  of  Medi- 
cine in  Paris,  when  a  doubt  was  expressed  as  to  whether  the  germ, 
asserted  to  be  the  cause  of  this  dreadful  mortality,  would  ever  be  seen, 
leaped  to  the  blackboard,  drew  what  we  now  know  as  the  Streptococcus, 
one  of  the  deadliest  germs,  and  cried  out,  "Look!  This  is  the  germ  of 
puerperal  fever !"  And  this  germ,  which  formerly  left  death  and  woe 
in  its  path,  is  now  under  our  heel. 

When  your  own  wives  and  daughters  face  the  pangs  and  perils  of 
maternity  to  whom  will  you  turn  for  help — to  those  who  have  practically 
abolished  childbed  fever  or  to  those  who  would  have  prevented  this 
blessed  victory? 

It  is  claimed  by  the  A-V's  that  all  this  is  due  to  sanitation  and  to 
cleanliness.  But  what  are  sanitation  and  cleanliness?  They  are  based 
wholly  on  laboratory  researches  into  what  the  Streptococcus  is,  what  it 
does,  how  it  is  spread  and  how  it  may  be  abolished.  In  other  words,  this 
saving  of  lives  is  due  to  bacteriology,  a  science  which  the  A-V's  totally 
reject. 

Diphtheria.  Up  to  1895  every  active  surgeon,  myself  among  the 
number,  was  often  called  upon  to  do  a  tracheotomy — that  is,  to  open 
the  windpipe,  'or  trachea,  in  the  neck  to  prevent  the  death  of  a  child  by 
suffocation  from  diphtheria. 

I  have  not  the  time  to  paint  the  picture  in  detail  of  the  agonized 
mother  begging  for  the  life  of  her  child,  yet  dreading  the  operation. 
And  no  wonder !  The  surgeons  dreaded  it  almost  as  much,  for  death, 
alas,  to'o  often  followed  in  spite  of  his  efforts. 

In  1895  the  antitoxin  against  diphtheria  was  introduced  and  soon 
became  a  common  treatment.  Exactly  as  the  use  of  antitoxin  in- 
creased in  frequency  the  calls  on  the  surgeon  for  tracheotomy  decreased. 

24 


After  a  few  years  I  was  never  called  on  to  do  this  operation,  and  my 
experience  is  duplicated,   I   may  safely  say,  by  practically  every  surgeon. 

The  mortality  of  diptlu-ria  increases  with  every  day  that  the  use  of 
the  antitoxin  is  delayed.  When  Riven  on  the  very  first  day,  in  218  cases 
i)f  a  series  of  nearly  4,()0(),  the  mortality  was  zero — not  one  death.  If 
delayed  till  the  second  day,  the  mortality  was  5  per  cent.  If  delayed  till 
the  third  day,  it  rose  to  12  per  cent.  If  delaj'cd  till  the  fourth  day,  it 
rose  to   Hi  per  cent. 

Tet.\nis  or  Lockjaw.  1  wish  I  had  space  to  describe  this  horrible 
disease  as  I  saw  it  in  the  Civil  War,  when  it  killed  nine  out  of  every 
ten  men  attacked  bj'  it.  Imagine  the  muscles  all  over  the  body  to  be 
gripped  by  cramps,  so  severe  that  the  whole  body  is  sometimes  bent 
backward,  onl}'  the  heels  and  the  head  touching  the  bed!  Unfortunately, 
the  patient's  mind  is  as  clear  as  my  reader's  at  this  moment.  Finally  a 
mercifully  cruel  spasm  of  the  muscles  of  the  throat  chokes  the  patient 
to  death. 

The  germ  of  tetanus  was  discovered  in  1884.  Its  home  is  in  the  in. 
testines  of  animals,  especially  of  the  horse. 

The  Germ  of  Tetanus 

The  soil  of  Belgium  and  Northern  France  has  been  cultivated  and 
roamed  over  bj'  horses  and  other  animals  for  2,000  years,  as  every  school- 
boy knows  from  Caesar's  Gallic  War.  It  is  the  most  dangerous  spot  of 
ground,  I  suppose,  on  earth,  for  it  is  full  of  the  most  virulent  germs  of 
tetanus  and   other  infections. 

In  the  Great  War  the  infection  of  practically  every  wound  and  its 
extreme  intensity  had  never  before  been  met  with.  Hence,  very  soon  it 
became  the  rule  to  give  every  wounded  soldier  a  full  dose  of  the  anti- 
tetanic  serum  at  the  very  first  opportunity.  Tetanus  at  once  became  less 
and  less  frequent,  so  that  later  one  case  in  Paris  was  shown  to  Dr.  Harvey 
Cushing,  of  Harvard,  as  a  curiosity. 

Syphilis.  This  scourge  has  ravaged  the  world  since  the  sixteenth 
century.  In  this  long  time  we  have  been  able  to  ameliorate  the  disease 
but  practically  never  to  cure  it. 

Whj'?  Because  we  did  not  know  the  cause.  Until  this  was  found  we 
were  fighting  in  the  dark.  Now  mark  what  the  advent  of  the  experi- 
mental   method   meant. 

Metchnikoff,  in  1903,  first  succeeded  in  inoculating  the  disease  in  apes 

25 


and  later  in  other  animals.  Experiments  on  animals,  impossible  before 
that  time,  were  immediately  begun.  In  1905  Schaudinn  and  Hoffmann 
thus  discovered  the  germ.  In  1910,  after  a  most  extraordinary  series  of 
experiments  with  six  hundred  and  five  other  remedies,  which  had  to  be 
discarded  as  ineffective  or  too  dangerous,  Ehrlich  discovered  his  Salvar- 
san,  or  606,  since  which  time  we  have  had  the  whip  hand  over  this 
desolating  plague.  Many  of  the  victims  of  this  dreadful  disease  are 
innocent  women ;  many  others  are  innocent  children,  some  already  dead 
when  born  and  others  destined  happily  to  an  early  grave;  still  others, 
less  fortunate,  doomed  to  drag  out  a  miserable  existence.  Not  a  few 
of  the  victims  were  innocent  doctors,  accidentally  infected,  of  whom  I 
have  known  five ;  one  committed  suicide. 

In  seven  years  experiments  on  animals  did  more  for  alleviating  human 
misery  from  this  one  disease  than  clinical  observation  on  m-an  alone  had 
done  in  over  four  centuries. 

Yellow  Fever.  We  were  more  fourtunate  in  the  fight  against  yellow 
fever,  for  by  the  research  work  of  Reed,  Lazear  and  others  was  discovered 
the  means  by  which  the  disease  was  carried,  and,  by  attacking  the 
mosquito,  a  wonderful  victory  was  won. 

But  lately  Noguchi,  that  genius  of  the  Rockfeller  Institute,  has  finally 
discovered  the  actual  germ  of  the  disease.  This  discovery  enabled  him  to 
prepare  a  preventive  serum.  To-day,  December  tenth,  as  I  am  writing 
these  words,  the  newspapers  announce  that  the  serum  of  Noguchi  has 
been  tried  where  the  fever  exists  and  has  been  found  to  confer  immunity 
upon  those  who  have  never  had  the  fever. 

Very  soon  the  dream  of  Surgeon-General  Gorgas  will  be  realized, 
that  yellow  fever  has  been  banished  from  the  world. 

Surgery  of  War.  I  have  mentioned  the  intensity  of  the  infection  seen 
in  the  Great  War.    At  first  our  ordinary  disinfectants  failed  utterly. 

Two  classes  of  wounds  were  recognized — the  contaminated  and  the 
infected. 

A  contaminated  wound  was  one  in  which  the  tissues  involved  had  had 
a  moderate  number  of  bacteria  strewn  on  the  surfaces  of  the  wound. 
The  missiles  of  the  war  far  exceeded  those  of  any  other  war  in  their 
enormous  velocity.  When  a  fragment  of  shell  struck  a  leg,  it  contami- 
nated all  the  surfaces  of  the  wound,  but  also,  by  the  impact  of  the  blow, 
killed  or  devitalized  a  certain  thickness  of  tissue  next  the  surface  of 
the  wound.     This  dead  and  dying  tissue  is  the  very  best  food  for  the 

26 


various  bacteria.  In  from  six  to,  say,  twelve  hours,  or  sometimes  more, 
these  germs  penetrated  deeply  into  the  tissues.  Then  the  wound  was  an 
infected  wound. 

In  a  contaminated  wound « it  was  found  that  the  germs  could  be 
removed  in  a  mass  by  cutting  away  all  the  contaminated  tissue.  Then 
the  wound  could  be  closed  at  once ;  and  eighty-five  to  ninety  wounds  in 
every  hundred  would  heal  at  once. 

Great  Strides  in   Healing 

In  an  infected  wound  this  procedure  alone  was  not  sufficient.  The 
bacteria  were  too  deep  and  too  numerous.  Then  Carrel  and  Dakin  came 
to  the  rescue.  They  showed,  by  experiments,  that  a  weak  solution  of 
bleaching  powder  was  the  most  efficient  antiseptic,  provided  it  could 
be  kept  continually  in  contact  with  the  entire  surface  of  the  wound. 
Carrel's  little  rubber  tubes,  connected  with  a  reservoir,  were  laid  in  the 
wound  in  every  direction,  and  every  two  hours  fresh  solution  irrigated 
the  entire  surface  of  the  wound. 

The  enormous  number  of  lives  of  our  gallant  soldiers  saved  will  be 
shown  when  the  medical  and  surgical  history  of  the  war  is  published. 
Never  before  has  such  a  large  percentage  of  the  wounded  been  saved, 
nor  with  such  relatively  small  disability. 

The  Surgery  of  Peace.  I  need  not  enter  into  details  here.  Every 
intelligent  reader  knows  that  surgical  operations  have  been  robbed,  not 
only  of  pain  by  anc-esthesia  but  also  of  their  chief  danger — infection.  An 
amputation  of  a  breast  or  an  operation  for  the  removal  of  gallstones  or 
of  the  appendix  early  in  the  attack  has  practically  no  mortality,  whereas 
prior  to  Lister's  day  amputation  of  the  breast  was  a  very  dangerous  and 
therefore  rare  operation,  and  removal  of  gallstones  and  operations  for 
appendicitis  were  never  done.  Most  of  such  sufferers  died  because  the 
danger  practically  prohibited  any  operative  interference.  Ovariotomy 
was  done.  But  two  out  of  every  three  patients  died;  now  scarcely  one 
in  a  hundred  dies. 

The  Cry  of  the  Animai,s.  I  wish  I  could  voice  the  pleas  of  the 
animals,  demanding  that  their  happiness,  health  and  lives  should  also  be 
conserved. 

In  1915,  when  prices  were  normal,  the  following  were  the  direct  losses 
in  the  United  States  every  year,  as  conservatively  estimated  in  dollars : 

27 


Hog    Cholera    $75,000,000 

Texas   Cattle   Fever 40,000,000 

Tuberculosis    25,000,000 

Contagious   Abortion    20,000,000 

$160,000,000 
Other    Diseases    52,850,000 

Total   in   1915 $212,850,000 

Not  only  loss  of  dollars  of  value  and  of  urgently  needed  food  but 
this  loss  meant  sickness,  suffering  and  death  to  millions  of  cattle,  hogs, 
horses,  sheep,  poultry,  and  so  forth.  Are  not  their  suffering  and  death 
to  be  vi^eighed  in  the  balance  as  well  as  the  suffering  and  death  of  human 
beings  ? 

Take  only  one  disease — anthrax,  or  woolsorter's  disease — as  an  example 
of  what  has  been  done. 

Pasteur  conquered  anthrax.  When  he  began  his  researches  thousands 
of  cattle  and  sheep  were  dying  from  anthrax  every  year.  It  was  a 
veritable  plague.  Moreover,  in  Europe  hundreds  and  hundreds  of  human 
beings  were  also  fellow  victims.  As  Huxley  pointed  out,  the  money  value 
of  this  one  victory  was  enough  to  pay  the  whole  indemnity  paid  by 
France  to  Germany  after  the  war  of  1870! 

Read  in  his  Life,  by  Valery  Radot,  the  dramatic  account  of  his  final 
experiment  in  1882  on  twenty-five  already  vaccinated  and  twenty-five 
unvaccinated  sheep.  All  of  the  fifty  were  inoculated  on  May  thirty-first 
with  the  virulent  germs  of  anthrax.  He  predicted  that  by  June  fifth 
the  twenty-five  unvaccinated  animals  would  be  dead  and  the  twenty-five 
vaccinated  would  be  living.  On  June  second  twenty-three  of  the  un- 
vaccinated sheep  were  dead,  and  the  other  two  were  dying.  Every  one 
of  the  twenty-five  vaccinated  sheep  had  escaped.  The  animals  of  all 
France,  nay,  of  all  the  world,  are  his  debtors  for  this  victory. 

Now,  in  the  name  of  common  sense,  was  not  this  a  righteous  and 
commendable  experiment,  and  were  not  the  prior  experiments  which 
gave  such  conclusive  evidence  of  the  means  of  escape  of  millions  of 
hogs,  cattle  and  sheep  and  thousands  of  human  beings  a  scientific,  a 
humane  and  therefore  a  Christian  duty? 

What  is  true  of  anthrax  is  true  of  many  other  diseases  of  animals. 
In  addition,  there  are  diseases  of  animals  in  which  we  have  not  yet 
found   the    germ   and    therefore   have    no    reliable   means    of   vaccination 

28 


against  them.  Tlicsc,  too,  must  be  and  will  be  conquered  in  time  by 
continued  research. 

If  the  A-V's  had  been  in  control  in  France  in  the  seventies  and 
eighties,  anthrax  and  other  diseases  of  animals,  now  partly  or  wholly 
conquered,  would  still  he  as  rampant  as  ever. 

If  only  the  animals  themselves  could  speak!  Would  they  uot,  with 
one  accord,  cry  out:  "Save  us  from  our  professed  friends,  who  are  in 
reality  our  deadly  enemies!  " 

But  a  new  era  seems  to  be  coming.  An  editorial  in  the  November, 
1920,  issue  of  the  Open  Door,  the  journal  of  the  New  York  .\-V  Society, 
relates  that  the  San  Francisco  S.  P.  C.  A.  makes  the  following  statement 
in  the  San  Francisco  Bulletin  of  October  19,  1920: 

"  Our  investigations  have  shown  that  the  animals  receive  the  same 
care  and  consideration  accorded  to  human  beings  who  are  subjected  to 
operations  of  various  kinds." 

This  statement  was  made  as  a  result  of  "  unannounced  visits  to  vivi- 
section laboratories."  If  only  the  other  societies  would  do  the  same, 
their  views  would  be  greatly  changed  and  they  would  support  such  ex- 
periments because  of  the  enormous  benefits  to  animals  as  well  as  to  the 
human  race.     The  doors  are  all  open. 

The  Surgery  of  Assurance 

I  have  spent  sixty  arduous  years  in  the  study  and  practice  of  surgery 
with  the  gladdening  knowledge  that  1  was  aiding  my  fellow  men,  women 
and  children  to  recover  from  disease  and  to  escape  death. 

I  am  not  a  vivisector,  but  I  know  that  every  day  and  in  every  operation 
upon  my  fellow  creatures  since  1876  I  have  been  guided  by  the  results 
of  experimental  research.  Research  has  given  to  surgeons,  physicians 
and  obstetricians  new  operations  and  new  means  of  treatment  wholly 
impossible  of  attainment  by  any  other  method,  and  these  have  been 
blest  of  God  to  millions  of  our  suffering  fellow  men  as  well  as  to 
animals.  These  researches  have  changed  the  surgery  of  desperation  be- 
fore 1876  into  today's  surgery  of  assurance. 

And  there  is  still  so  much  to  be  learned  !  So  much  ignorance  to  be 
dispelled !  Were  there  room  I  could  tell  of  cases  in  which  my  own 
ignorance — an  involuntary  ignorance  shared  by  all  my  fellow  surgeons- 
has  cost   human   lives,   as   afterward  I   learned  to   my  unending  sorrow. 

Do  you  wonder  then  that  my  cry — that  our  cry,  as  a  profession — is  for 
more  liyhi? 

29 


THE    TRUTH    ABOUT    VIVISECTION 

By  Ernest  Harold  Baynes 


The  man  of  whom  John  Burroughs  said,  "  He  is  a 
sane  and  accurate  naturalist";  the  man  of  whom 
Theodore  Roosevelt  said,  "  He  has  the  highest  repu- 
tation in  all  forms  of  work  for  the  care  of  animal 
life " ;  the  man  who  is  known  the  country  over  as  a 
lover  of  animals,  has  investigated  the  whole  question 
of  vivisection  for  the  Companion.  The  result  of  his 
investigation  is  here  published. 


Reprinted  by  permission  from  Woman's  Home  Companion,  July,  1921. 

I  was  led  to  make  a  study  of  vivisection  because  I  discovered  that  the 
hearts  of  many  kindly,  humane  people  were  being  wrung  by  stories  of 
brutality  and  torture  practiced  upon  animals  in  the  interest  of  so-called 
science. 

I  made  a  careful  and  thorough  study  of  the  literature  prepared  and 
circulated  by  the  opponents  of  vivisection,  and  I  was  struck  with  horror 
at  the  statements  made  of  wanton,  even  demoniac  cruelty  on  the  part  of  the 
physicians,  apparently  of  everyday  occurrence  in  the  experimental  labora- 
tories of  the  world.  All  my  life  I  have  been  a  lover  of  animals,  and  my 
work  has  been  chiefly  along  the  line  of  caring  for  our  dumb  brothers  and 
safeguarding  their  interests.  Naturally,  it  was  of  the  greatest  moment  to 
me  to  examine  into  these  reports,  and  to  use  such  influence  as  I  possess  in 
protecting  the  animals  I  loved  from  any  such  neediest  and  terrible  torture 
as  was  described  in  these  circulars.  If  these  statements  could  be  proved 
true,  vivisection  should  be  abolished  at  once  and  I,  as  a  lover  of  animals, 
would  be  among  the  first  to  throw  oflf  my  coat  and  work  for  its  abolition. 

I  am  going  to  take  my  readers  along  with  me'  in  my  investigation  and 
let  them  decide  for  themselves  the  merits  of  the  case. 

One  of  the  circulars  I  examined  was  a  pamphlet  of  sixty-three  pages, 
recently  issued  by  the  New  York  Anti-Vivisection  Society.  It  is  entitled 
"  Medical  Opinions  Against  Vivisection,"  and  claims  to  voice  the  sentiment 
of  over  250  medical  men  "of  the  highest  intelligence  and  honor."  Of 
course,  it  is  not  possible  in  the  space  of  a  magazine  article  to  speak  of 

30 


every  one  of  these  men;  hut  let  us  take,  say,  nine  fairly  representative 
ones.    I  will  give  them  all  the  titles  with  which  the  pamphlet  credits  them. 

Elliotson,  John,  M.  1).,  author  "  Elliotson's  Human  Physiology,"  "  Prac- 
tice of  Medicine,"   Edinburgh,  Scotland. 

Clay,  Charles,  M.  D.,  Manchester,  England. 

Berdoe,  Edward,  F.  R.  C.  S.,  L.  S.  A.,  L.  R.  C.  P.,  etc.,  London. 
England. 

Townscnd,  Stephen.  M.  D.,  F.  R.  C.  S.,  London,  England. 

Tait,  R.  Lawson,  LL.  D.,  L.  R.  C.  P..  L.  R.  C.  S.,  F.  R.  D.  C,  Former 
\'ivisector,  Birmingham,  England. 

Bell,  Sir  Charles,  F.  R.  C.  S.,  F.  R.  S.,  Prof.  Surgery,  University  of 
Edinburgh,  Scotland. 

Treves,  Sir  Frederick,  Bart.,  M.  D.,  G  C.  V.  O.,  C.  B.,  LL.  D.,  F.  R. 
C.  S.,  Sergeant-Surgeon  to  King  George  V.,  etc.,  etc.,  London,  England. 

Editor,  "  Medical  Times  and  Gazette." 

Editor,  "  Edinburgh  Report,"  Scotland. 

Who  Are  These  Eminent  Doctors? 

The  array  of  medical  opinion,  of  which  the  above  is  a  fair  sample, 
certainly  looks  very  formidable.  The  average  reader  would  naturally 
exclaim,  "  Why,  there  must  be  something  wrong  about  vivisection,  or  all 
those  eminent  doctors  would  not  be  so  violently  opposed  to  it."  Just 
as  in  any  court  of  law  the  reliability  of  witnesses  must  be  established  before' 
their  testimony  can  be  accepted,  so  I  thought  I  would  look  into  the  records 
of  these  physicians,  and  also  read  exactly  what  they  themselves  had  to  say 
on   the  subject   of    vivisection. 

I  found  that  Dr.  John  Elliotson  was  not  an  eminent  physician ;  he  was 
a  mesmerist,  and  founded  a  mesmerist  hospital.  Fie  was  born  one  hundred 
and  thirty  years  ago,  and  knew  nothing  whatever  of  modern  methods. 

Dr.  Charles  Clay  was  born  one  hundred  and  twenty  years  ago,  and 
knew  nothing  of  modern  methods.  His  specialities  were  geology  and 
archeology. 

Dr.  Edward  Berdoe  was  born  eighty-four  years  ago.  He  is  the  author 
of  "  Browning  and  the  Christian  Faith,"  "  A  Browning  Primer,"  "  The 
Browning  Encyclopedia,"  "The  Biographical  and  Historical  Notes  of 
Browning's  Complete  Works,"  etc.,  etc.  However  eminent  Dr.  Berdoe 
may  be  as  a  student  of  Browning,  his  fame  is  apparently  not  based  on  his 
achievements  in  medicine  or  surgery. 

31 


Dr.  Stephen  Townsend  reports  himself  as  a  novelist,  surgeon,  and 
actor,  on  the  stage  for  years,  playing  prominent  roles  in  "  Sowing  the 
Wind,"  "  Slaves  of  the  Ring,"  "  Black  Tulip,"  etc. 

Now  we  come  to  a  really  eminent  surgeon — Dr.  Lawson  Tait.  Dr. 
Tait  was  opposed  to  vivisection,  but  later  changed  his  opinion.  This 
recantation  the  circular  did  not  allude  to. 

Sir  Charles  Bell  was  a  very  eminent  Scotch  surgeon,  born  one  hun- 
dred and  forty-seven  years  ago.  He  died  nearly  eighty  years  ago.  Had 
he  been  opposed  to  the  vivisection  of  his  day,  when  anesthetics  were 
unknown,  it  would  not  necessarily  mean  that  he  would  have  been  opposed 
to  modern  vivisection,  which  is  a  totally  different  thing.  It  would  be  like 
quoting  Christopher  Columbus  in  an  attempt  to  prove  that  modern  ocean 
travel  is  slow,  uncomfortable  and  dangerous.  But,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
Sir  Charles  Bell's  fame  is  based  on  vivisection.  He  is  chiefly  known  for 
his  discovery  of  the  distinct  functions  of  the  dorsal  and  ventral  roots 
of  spinal  nerves,  and  for  his  study  of  the  functions  of  certain  other 
nerves.  His  final  proofs  were  secured  through  experiments  on  animals, 
and  it  is  difficult  to  understand  why  his  name  was  used  as  an  opponent  of 
vivisection. 

What  Doctor  Treves  Really  Said 

Sir  Frederick  Treves  is  another  of  the  famous  men  quoted  in  the  cir- 
cular. This  surgeon  felt  that  certain  experiments  he  had  performed  on 
the  intestines  of  dogs  had  done  little  but  unfit  him  to  deal  with  the  intes- 
tines of  men.  Here  at  last  was  something  definite.  I  decided  to  look  fur- 
ther into  his  statements,  and  I  found  in  the  London  "  Times  "  of  April 
18,  1902,  the  following  statement  by  Sir  Frederick  Treves : 

"  Those  who  are  familiar  with  the  controversial  methods  of  the 
anti-vivisection  party,  will  not  be  surprised  that  certain  of  my 
remarks  have  been  cunningly  isolated  from  the  context,  and  have 
been  used  in  advertisements,  pamphlets,  and  speeches,  to  condemn 
all  vivisection  experiments  as  useless.  The  fallacy  of  vivisection 
can  hardly  be  said  to  be  established  by  the  failure  of  a  solitary 
series  of  operations  dealing  with  one  small  branch  of  practical  sur- 
gery. No  one  is  more  keenly  aware  than  I  am  of  the  great  benefits 
conferred  on  suffering  humanity  by  certain  researches  carried  out 
by  means  of  vivisection." 

32 


Now  we  come  to  tlic  editors  of  "The  Medical  Times  and  (Jazettc," 
and  "  Tlie  Edinburgh  Report,"  respectively. 

The  first  of  these  journals  was  published  in  "the  dark  ages"  of  medi- 
cine, and  was  dead  and  buried  lon^  Iiefore  the  birth  of  modern  methods. 
Tlie  second  I  can  thid  no  trace  of.  Xo  such  journal  is  listed  in  the  Inde.x: 
Catalogue  of  the  Library  of  the  Surgeon  General's  office  in  Washington. 
This  is  the  most  complete  list  in  the  world,  and  includes  every  mediqal 
journal  of  the  least  value. 

I  went  through  the  entire  list  in  the  same  way  and  found  to  my  amaze- 
ment that  most  of  the  testimony  was  of  the  same  unconvincing  character. 
Space  does  not  permit  my  going  into  the  list  in  greater  detail  in  this 
article. 

But  let  us  go  just  a  little  further  before  we  leave  "Medical  Opinions 
against  Vivisection."  On  page  2  we  are  informed  that  only  twenty-five 
per  cent,  of  the  medical  fraternity  favor  vivisection.  If  that  could  be 
proved  true  it  would  be  a  significant  fact.  I  determined  to  look  into  this 
statement. 

The  only  way  we  have  of  determining  the  attitude  of  medical  men  as  a 
body  is  through  their  recorded  actions  at  their  great  meetings,  where  some- 
times several  thousands  of  individuals  are  represented.  I  found  that  the 
British  Medical  Association  and  the  American  Medical  Association,  as 
well  as  the  American  Association  for  the  Advancement  of  Science,  had 
passed,  unanimously,  strong  resolutions  in  favor  of  vivisection.  I  happen 
to  have  before  me  a  copy  of  a  resolution  unanimously  approved  by  the 
International  Medical  Congress  which  met  in  London  in  1913.  This  con- 
gress was  composed  of  distinguished  physicians  and  surgeons  from  all 
over  the  world.     The  first  sentence  runs  as  follows : 

Resolved:  That  this  congress  records  its  conviction  that  experiments 
on  living  animals  have  proved  of  the  utmost  service  to  medicine  in  the 
past,  and  are  indispensable  to  its  future  progress. 

I  have  never  seen  nor  heard  of  a  resolution  passed  against  vivisection 
by  a  recognized  medical  society  or  any  other  scientific  body. 

What  could  the  pamphlet  mean  by  stating  that  only  twenty-five  per 
cent,  of  the  medical  fraternity  were  in  favor  of  vivisection? 

The  opponents  of  vivisection  base  their  whole  campaign  on  two  propo- 
sitions : 

1.  That   animals  are   ruthlessly   tortured   in   the   laboratories  to  gratify 

33 


the   curiosity   of   heartless   doctors   who   gloat   over   the   agony  of   their 
helpless  vicitims.     (This  is  not  an  exaggerated  statement  of  their  case.) 

2.  That  no  benefit  to  mankind  or  to  animals  has  ever  been  derived 
from  vivisection. 

Again,  if  these  propositions  are  true — if  they  are  even  approximately 
true — you  and  I,  and  all  the  decent  people  we  know,  should  join  hands 
in  driving  vivisection  from  every  state  in  the  Union, 
*  Let  us  see  if  they  are  true.    Let  me  take  them  up  one  at  a  time. 

Before  1846,  practically  all  surgery,  whether  on  human  beings  or 
animals,  was  painful,  because  no  effective  anaesthetic  was  known.  Vivi- 
section was  done  in  those  days,  and  of  course  the  animals  suffered.  But 
even  then  the  surgeons  were  not  trying  to  torture  animals,  they  were 
seeking  newer  and  safer  ways  of  performing  operations — more  light  on 
the  functions  of  the  various  organs  of  the  body,  with  a  view  to  advancing 
medical  science  for  the  benefit  of  man.  And  that  they  did  so  advance 
their  science  is  a  matter  of  history.  To  mention  only  one  advance  they 
made,  Harvey,  according  to  his  own  testimony,  discovered  the  circulation 
of  the  blood  through  vivisection. 

An  Occasional  Heartless  Doctor 

Now  there  have  been  a  very  few  surgeons,  before  and  since  the  dis- 
covery of  anaesthetics,  who  have  not  had  proper  consideration  for  the 
animals  they  used  in  their  experiments.  Just  as  we  occasionally  find  a 
reckless  chauffeur  who  drives  his  car  at  high  speed  through  a  crowded 
thoroughfare,  so  occasionally  we  find  a  heartless  doctor  who  seems  in- 
different to  the  pain  he  inflicts  on  animals.  One  such  man  was  Mante- 
gazza,  an  Italian  surgeon,  whose  book  "  The  Physiology  of  Pain "  was 
published  forty  years  ago.  Another  was  Dr.  B.  A.  Watson,  of  Jersey  City, 
who  performed  some  very  cruel  experiments  in  studying  the  effect  of 
"  shock."  Both  of  these  men  have  long  been  dead.  No  one  attempts  to 
defend  the  cruelties  they  were  guilty  of;  they  have  been  severely  censured 
by  the  medical  fraternity. 

The  other  vivisectors  whom  the  anti-vivisectionists  often  refer  to  are 
Magendie,  Brachet,  and  Claude  Bernard.  Magendie  died  in  1856,  Brachet 
in  1858,  and  Claude  Bernard  in  1878;  but  I  found  that  the  literature 
usually  mentioned  them  as  if  they  were  still  living,  and  as  if  such  pain- 
ful operations  as  they  sometimes  performed  from  fifty  to  a  hundred  years 
ago  in  France  were  of  daily  occurrence  in  American  laboratories  of  the 

34 


present  day.  This  is  not  only  untrue  but  it  struck  mc  as  very  unfair, 
and  an  insult  to  the  humane  people  to  whom  the  appeal  is  being  made. 

Now  I  began  to  look  into  the  character  of  the  doctors  who  are  engaged 
in  animal  experimentation.  With  a  sincere  wish  to  learn  the  absolute 
truth,  I  visited  many  laboratories  both  in  this  country  and  abroad,  some 
of  them,  like  the  Rockefeller  Institute,  several  times.  I  have  seen  many 
operations  on  animals — five  within  the  past  month — and  although  I  usually 
visit  these  places  unheralded,  I  have  never  seen  anything  in  the  nature 
of  cruelty  to  animals.  I  do  not  say  that  there  is  no  suffering  in  research 
laboratories,  because  there  is.  Perhaps  two  or  three  per  cent,  of  the 
animals  used  suffer  more  or  less  actual  pain;  many  more  suffer  some 
discomfort,  but  it  is  so  little  compared  with  the  pain  and  discomfort 
from  which  human  beings  and  animals  are  saved  by  these  experiments 
that  it  becomes  insignificant. 

Instead  of  the  "  brutality  and  heartlessness "  I  have  read  about,  I 
found  nothing  but  kindness  and  consideration.  A  few  days  ago  I  was  in 
a  laboratory  of  a  great  cancer  hospital  in  Buffalo,  New  York.  On  the 
door  of  the  operating-room  was  posted  a  set  of  rules  which  I  would  like 
to  give  in  full.  As  space  will  not  permit  this  I  will  quote  from  two  or 
three. 

I.  Vagrant  dogs  and  cats  brought  to  this  laboratory  and  purchased 
here  shall  be  held  at  least  as  long  as  at  the  city  pound,  and  shall  be  re- 
turned to  their  owners  if  claimed  and  identified. 

II.  Animals  in  the  laboratory  shall  receive  every  consideration  for 
their  bodily  comfort;  they  shall  be  kindly  treated,  properly  fed,  and 
their  surroundings  kept  in  the  best  possible  sanitary  condition. 

IV.  In  any  operation  likely  to  cause  greater  discomfort  than  that 
attending  anesthetization,  the  animal  shall  first  be  rendered  incapable  of 
perceiving  pain  and  shall  be  maintained  in  that  condition  until  the  opera- 
tion is  ended.  Exceptions  to  this  rule  will  be  made  by  the  director  alone, 
and  then  only  when  anesthesia  would  defeat  the  object  of  the  experiment. 

These  rules,  imposed  by  the  doctors  themselves,  are  posted  in  prac- 
tically every  laboratory  in  the  country,  and  are  conscientiously  lived  up  to. 

At  Johns  Hopkins  University,  where  I  went  last  week,  and  where 
many  dogs  are  kept  for  experimental  purposes,  there  is  a  sign  in  the 
Hunterian  Laboratory,  which  reads,  "  Any  attendant  who  strikes  a  dog 
is  to  be  discharged  at  once." 

^ven  were  the  surgeons  as  heartless  as  we  have  been  led  to  believe — 

35 


a  preposterous  thought — they  would  still  give  the  animals  every  care, 
for  the  selfish  reason  that  their  own  success  depends  on  it.  If  you  have 
ever  tried  to  hold  even  a  small  dog  or  cat  which  has  made  up  its  mind 
to  get  away  from  you,  you  will  realize  how  absurd  it  would  be  to  try  to 
perform  a  delicate  surgical  operation  on  that  animal,  no  matter  how 
securely  he  might  be  tied,  unless  he  were  first  rendered  insensible  by 
anesthesia.  For  the  same  reason,  even  a  heartless  doctor  would  see  to 
it  that  an  animal  was  well  taken  care  of  both  before  and  after  the  opera- 
tion, because  neglect  would  militate  against  the  success  of  the  experiment. 

The  "Pavlov"  Dog 

In  another  recent  pamphlet  put  out  by  the  anti-vivisectionists  much 
is  said  about  the  Pavlov  experiments,  so  called  because  a  famous  Russian 
physiologist  of  that  name  first  performed  them,  with  a  view  to  obtaining 
pure  gastric  juice;  that  is,  gastric  juice  unmixed  with  the  food  taken  into 
the  stomach.  In  the  pamphlet  the  feelings  of  the  reader  are  harrowed 
by  a  revolting  description  of  the  sad  plight  of  dogs  doomed  to  supply 
this  gastric  juice. 

Now,  speaking  very  briefly,  the  chief  operation  involved  consists  of 
dividing  the  stomach  into  two  parts,  a  large  part  and  a  small  part,  sepa- 
rated from  each  other  by  a  double  layer  of  mucous  membrane.  In  the 
large  part  digestion  goes  on  just  as  it  did  before  the  operation.  The 
small  part,  known  as  a  Pavlov  pouch,  has  a  little  hole  in  one  end,  and 
the  edge  of  this  is  attached  to  the  edge  of  a  small  opening  of  the  same 
size  in  the  abdomen.  The  wound  quickly  heals,  and  there  is  no  more 
discomfort  than  one  has  from  a  natural  opening — the  mouth  or  nostrils, 
for  example.  The  Pavlov  pouch  being  separated  from  the  rest  of  the 
stomach,  no  food  can  enter  it.  But,  interestingly  enough,  when  the 
dog  eats  his  food — ^just  as  other  dogs  do  by  the  way — gastric  juice  is 
secreted,  not  only  in  the  stomach  itself,  but  in  the  little  pouch  which 
was  once  a  part  of  the  stomach.  From  this  it  is  allowed  to  trickle  into 
a  cup  or  jar,  and  pure  gastric  juice  is  obtained. 

A  few  weeks  ago  I  was  in  the  Physiological  Laboratory  of  Chicago 
University,  and  I  was  looking  for  the  room  of  a  professor  with  whom  I 
had  an  appointment.  Presently  my  attention  was  attracted  to  a  door 
by  the  sounds  of  scuffling  feet,  the  laughter  of  several  men  and  above 
all  the  joyous  barking  of  a  dog.  I  opened  the  door  and  there  were 
several  doctors,  playing  with  a  little  yellow  dog  with  a  broad  white  bandage 

36 


around  Iicr  middle  in  the  form  of  a  belt.  They  were  romping  with  her 
and  she  was  thoroughly  enjoying  herself.  The  doctors  later  introduced 
her  to  me  as  "  Buster — a  member  of  the  staff."  This  is  a  "  Pavlov  " 
dog,  and,  as  I  wrote  to  Mrs.  Baynes,  "it  is  one  of  the  happiest,  best- 
cared-for  little  dogs  I  have  ever  seen."  The  original  operation  was 
performed    under   ether  eight  years   ag'o. 

Is  Anything  Accomplished   by  Vivisection? 

Now  for  the  second  contention  made  by  the  opponents  of  vivisection — 
namely,  that  no  benefit  to  mankind  or  to  animals  has  ever  been  derived 
from  vivisection. 

Here  again,  if  this  contention  were  based  on  the  facts,  you  and  I 
would  jump  straight  to  our  feet  and  vote  against  vivisection.  Let  us 
look  the  facts   fairly  in  the   face. 

Many  years  ago  I  had  a  little  brother,  not  quite  three  years  old,  who 
came  down  with  diphtheria.  A  doctor  was  called,  and  he  did  all  that  a 
doctor  of  those  days  could  do.  But  he  was  almost  as  helpless  as  my 
mother,  who  watched  the  child  die  in  all  the  agony  of  strangulation.  And 
this  was  a  very  common  experience  in  those  days.  In  literally  thousands 
of  cases,  weeping  and  often  frantic  mothers  stood  by  the  bedsides,  begging, 
pleading,  for  little  lives,  while  the  surgeons  stood  by  with  jaw  set  and 
scalpel  in  hand,  ready  to  take  the  last  dread  measure  and  open  the 
trachea    (windpipe)    to  prevent   actual    strangulation. 

To-day,  such  scenes,  in  diphtheria  cases  at  least,  are  practically  un- 
heard of.  As  soon  as  it  is  known  that  a  child  has  diphtheria  it  is  given 
an  injection  of  diphtheria  antitoxin,  and  if  this  is  given  on  the  first  day 
the  child  recovers  as  a  matter  of  course.  In  cases  where  the  injection  is 
not  given  until  the  second  day,  the  death  rate  is  between  four  and  five 
per  cent.;  if  delayed  until  the  third  day,  the  death  rate  is  about  twelve  and 
a  half  per  cent.:  if  postponed  until  the  fourth  day  sixteen  and  a  half  per 
cent.  These  figures  are  given  by  the  Hospital  for  Contagious  Diseases, 
New  York  City,  and  represent  observations  on  2,849  diphtheria  patients. 

Every  up-to-date  hospital  for  the  treatment  of  diphtheria,  all  over  the 
world,  and  practically  every  physician  of  standing,  uses  diphtheria  anti- 
toxin. The  decline  in  the  death  rate  of  diphtheria  patients  dates  from 
189S — the  year  in  which  this  antitoxin  was  introduced.  Tracheotomy  (cut- 
ting of  the  windpipe)  became  a  rarer  and  rarer  operation,  and  today,  as 
far  as  diphtheria  is  concerned,  is  unnecessary. 

37 


By  a  series  of  most  careful  and  painstaking  experiments  on  mice, 
guinea  pigs,  rabbits  and  a  few  monkeys,  Loeffler  discovered  this  blessed 
antitoxin  which,  it  has  been  estimated,  saves  the  lives  of  a  hundred  thou- 
sand human  beings  every  year.  And  it  will  go  on  saving  them  in  the  years 
to  come,  at  least  until  some  better  cure  is  discovered.  I  do  not  know 
of  any  finer  use  to  which  a  couple  of  hundred  guinea  pigs  and  rabbits 
could  be  put.  Even  if  it  were  life  for  life,  would  you  not  vote  to  sacrifice 
a  guinea  pig  or  a  rabbit  to  save  the  life  of  a  child? 

The  Fatal  Childbed  Fever 

Another  terrible  scourge,  which  the  more  elderly  of  my  readers  will 
have  heard  of,  was  puerperal  or  "  childbed  "  fever.  It  used  to  cause  the 
death  of  from  three  to  five  out  of  every  hundred  mothers.  During  epi- 
demics it  killed  twenty,  forty  and  sometimes  even  as  high  as  fifty-five  out 
of  every  hundred.  In  come  cases  the  mortality  was  so  frightful  that  a 
maternity  hospital  would  be  closed,  because  half  of  the  women  entering  it 
were  practically  doomed  to  die  of  childbed  fever. 

Then,  Pasteur,  the  great  bacteriologist — the  great  vivisector,  if  you 
will — came  along  and  by  animal  experimentation  discovered  the  microbe 
which  caused  the  fever.  His  work  was  followed  up  by  the  great  surgeon 
and  vivisector,  Lord  Lister,  and  the  experiments  of  these  two  laid  the 
foundation  of  modern  surgery.  Their  experiments  proved  that  infection 
of  wounds  was  caused  by  germs.  Aseptic  methods  began  to  be  used — 
that  is,  every  effort  was  made  to  keep  wounds  free  from  harmful  germs. 

Antiseptic  hand-scrubbing,  sterilized  instruments  and  uniforms,  and 
scores  of  other  precautions  were  taken  by  doctors  and  nurses  and,  behold, 
the  deadly  puerperal  fever  is  practically  wiped  off  the  list  in  the  maternity 
hospitals.  I  have  recently  noted  one  series  of  over  eight  thousand  births 
without  the  loss  of  a  single  mother  from  this  cause.  In  the  days  before 
Pasteur  and  Lister  there  would  certainly  have  been  two  hundred  and  fifty 
deaths  in  that  series. 

If  you  could  see  those  two  hundred  and  fifty  mothers  lined  up  with 
their  babies  in  their  arms,  would  you  condemn  them  to  painful  death, 
and  all  their  relatives  to  grief,  in  order  to  save  from  less  painful  death 
an  equal  number  of  guinea  pigs,  rabbits,  and  billy-goats — or  even  dogs, 
much  as  we  love  them?  Of  course  you  wouldn't — nor  would  anyone  who 
has  imagination  enough  to  enable  her  to  think  straight,  and  to  see  things 
in  their  proper  proportions.     But  that  saving  of  life  was  in  a  series  of 

38 


8,000  mothers.  This  isn't  a  question  of  eight  thousand  or  eight  million 
mothers.  The  discoveries  of  Pasteur  and  Lister,  and  those  of  their  brave 
and  distinguished  followers,  affect  the  mothers  of  every  civilized  country 
in  the  world,  and  not  this  year  and  next  year,  but  every  year  as  long  as 
the  human  race  exists. 

Deaths  from  Typhoid 

In  the  Spanish-American  War,  of  which  I  am  a  veteran,  nearly  seven- 
teen per  cent,  of  the  soldiers — that  is,  one  in  every  six — had  typhoid  fever. 
It  was  the  cause  of  six  times  as  many  deaths  as  all  other  causes  put 
together.  I  speak  with  feeling,  for  I  was  one  of  those  who  had  it.  In 
the  World  War  there  w-as  practically  no  typhoid  fever,  for  the  very  simple 
reason  that  a  vivisector  named  Wright  had  discovered  a  vaccine  which 
prevented  the  soldiers  from  contracting  it.  It  was  used  by  the  armies 
of  all  the  civilized  countries  engaged,  and  practically  every  soldier  was 
treated  with  it.  It  is  estimated  by  Colonel  William  H.  Arthur,  late  com- 
mandant of  the  Army  Medical  School,  and  now  medical  director  of  the 
Georgetown  University  Hospital,  that  this  vaccine  saved  the  lives  of  at 
least  thirty  thousand  boys  in  the  American  army  alone,  and  that  it  saved  at 
least  two  hundred  and  sixty  thousand  more  from  three  or  four  months  of 
illness  and  incapacity.     And  this  is  in  the  American  army  alone. 

Of  such  vast  importance  to  the  world  are  the  results  of  such  experi- 
ments as  are  being  carried  on  by  vivisectors  that  in  cases  in  which,  for 
some  reason,  animals  do  not  afford  a  suitable  medium  for  their  work,  they 
sometimes  offer  themselves  as  subjects.  An  instance  is  that  of  the  Ameri- 
can Commission  appointed  in  1900  to  make  an  investigation  of  the  deadly 
yellow  fever  in  Cuba.  It  had  existed  perpetually  in  Havana,  and  occa- 
sionally it  invaded  this  country,  especially  the  Southern  states,  where  in 
one  epidemic  it  destroyed  16,000  persons.  It  constituted  one  of  the  prin- 
cipal reasons  for  the  French  abandoning  the  Panama  Canal  project.  It 
had  taken  a  toll  of  22,189  workmen,  and  no  life  in  that  pestilential  zone  was 
safe   from   it. 

How  Yellow  Fever  Was  Wiped   Out 

When  the  American  Commission,  headed  by  Major  'Walter  Reed  and 
Dr.  James  Carroll,  was  appointed  by  Surgeon-General  Sternberg,  no  one 
had  any  clear  proof  either  as  to  the  cause  of  the  disease  or  the  means  by 

39 


which  it  was  spread.  As  animals  are  not  subject  to  yellow  fever,  it  was 
necessary  for  men  to  volunteer.  Dr.  R.  P.  Cook  and  several  private 
soldiers  of  the  American  army  slept  for  twenty  consecutive  nights  on  the 
mattresses  on  which  yellow  fever  patients  had  died,  clad  in  the  pajamas  and 
covered  with  the  terribly  soiled  bed  clothing  in  which  those  patients  had 
spent  their  last  days.  This*  and  other  experiments  too  awful  to  describe 
they  subjected  themselves  to;  but  as  they  remained  perfectly  well,  they 
proved  that  yellow  fever  is  not  contagious.  Then  Doctor  Reed  believed 
that  the  disease  was  spread  by  mosquitoes ;  so  he  and  Doctor  Carroll  and 
several  others  allowed  themselves  to  be  bitten  by  mosquitoes  which  had 
previously  bitten  yellow-fever  patients.  Very  soon  most  of  the  volunteers 
were  down  with  yellow  fever,  and  some  of  them  never  got  up  again.  One 
of  these  was  Doctor  J.  W.  Lazear,  a  member  of  the  commission  who, 
after  several  days  of  delirium,  died  in  convulsions.  But  they  proved 
Reed's  theory  to  be  correct,  and  then  the  army,  by  wiping  out  the  mosqui- 
toes, rid  Havana  of  yellow  fever  forever.  Later,  General  Gorgas  in  the 
same  way  cleaned  up  the  Panama  Canal  Zone. 

The  above  are  only  a  few  of  the  many  advances  in  medicine  made 
through  animal  experimentation. 

The  achievements  in  surgery  have  been  even  more  striking.  Before 
the  days  of  Lister,  abdominal  operations  were  rarely  done,  and  when  done 
were  usually  fatal.  Now  they  are  performed  daily  in  thousands  of  hos- 
pitals, and  thousands  of  people  are  saved  who  in  the  old  days  would  have 
died  of  "inflammation  of  the  bowels"  (appendicitis),  and  other  diseases 
for  which  surgeons  dared  not  operate.  In  the  Civil  War  if  a  man  was 
shot  through  the  bowels,  he  died.  In  the  World  War  thousands  of  cases 
of  this  kind  made  complete  recovery.  Why?  Because  the  surgeons  knew 
just  what  to  do — how  to  sew  up  the  holes — ^how  to  join  the  ends  of  the 
severed  tubes  so  that  they  would  not  leak,  and  so  that  they  would  heal 
perfectly.  The  skill  required  to  do  this  was  gained  through  vivisection. 
It  is  safe  to  say  that  for  every  animal  used  in  those  experiments,  a  hun- 
dred human  lives  were  saved  in  the  World  War  alone. 

Compound  fractures  used  to  kill  two  out  of  every  three  patients — over 
sixty-six  per  cent. ;  today  the  mortality  from  this  cause  is  well  below  one 
per  cent.     This  saving  of  life  was  brought  about  by  animal  experimentation. 

The  same  may  be  said  of  surgery  of  the  chest,  surgery  of  the  head, 
indeed,  surgery  of  every  kind. 

The  whole  question  is  one  of  proportion.     All  history  will  bear  me  out 

40 


when  I  say  that  no  bodily  sacrifice,  whetlier  of  animals  or  of  men,  is 
too  great  to  be  inade,  provided  the  cause  for  that  sacrifice  is  proportionately 
great. 

Was  Doctor  Grenfell  Justified? 

It  has  always  been  an  axiom  that  a  man's  life  is  of  greater  conse- 
quence than  an  animal's  life. 

When  Doctor  Grenfell  was  afloat  on  an  ice  pan,  and  killed  three  of 
his  faithful  dogs  that  he  might  get  their  skins  to  keep  himself  from 
freezing,  the  world  applauded  him  for  the  brave,  resourceful  man  he  is. 
It  was  considered  better  that  they  should  suffer  and  die  than  that  he 
should    suffer  and   die. 

He  was  not  hardened  by  causing  that  suflFering;  he  was  touched  with 
gratitude.  He  had  a  tablet  erected  to  the  memory  of  those  splendid  dogs, 
and  the  names  of  Moody,  Watch,  and  Spy  will  go  down  in  history  with 
that  of  Grenfell  himself  and  the  other  heroes  of  the  Labrador. 

Yet  I  know  that  Doctor  Grenfell  will  not  misunderstand  me  when  I  say 
that  the  killing  of  those  dogs  was  selfishness  personified  when  compared 
with  the  work  of  the  vivisectors.  He  killed  three  dogs,  his  personal 
friends,  to  save  one  life — his  own.  The  vivisectors  take  no  such  toll  as 
that.  For  every  animal  they  cause  to  suffer  and  die,  they  save  unnum- 
bered human  beings  from  suffering  and  death.  As  I  have  said,  the  ques- 
tion is  one  of  proportion.  The  greater  the  cause,  the  greater  the  sacrifice 
which   it  justifies. 


In  this  article  I  have  sought  to  give  facts,  and  allow  my  readers  to 
make  their  own  deductions.  I  honestly  believe  that  some  of  the  people 
who  are  preparing  literature  against  vivisection  are  either  making  state- 
ments which  they  know  to  be  untrue  or  misleading,  or  are  deliberately 
closing  their  minds  to  the  truth  in  its  larger  aspect. 

The  Editor  of  this  magazine,  believing  as  I  do  that  all  of  you  are 
entitled  to  the  truth  and  that  you  will  welcome  it,  has  given  me  the  oppor- 
tunity to  put  it  before  you,  stipulating  that  I  shall  make  no  statement 
wihout  ample  evidence  to  support  it.  I  should  not  present  this  case,  nor 
would  the  Woman's  Home  Companion  publish  it,  if  we  did  not  both 
believe  that  it  is  of  the  utmost  importance  to  the  human  race,  and  to 
animals  as  well,  that  medicine  and  surgery  be  allowed  to  advance,  un- 
hampered  by   ignorance,   prejudice,   and    sentimentality. 

41 


^nirTn'^^llJl^'^^^S'^Y  LIBRARIES 

i|i|li.i|Jiliiliiiliiiliiii  I 

0043055354 


DUE  DATE 

201-6503 

Printed 
in  USA 

